# DIRECTV Satellite Discussion D-14 @99W



## Sixto

Next up, DirecTV-14, 2014.

Space Systems / Loral (SS/L) Selected to Provide High-Power Satellite to DirecTV:
http://www.ssloral.com/html/pressreleases/pr20100611.html
RB-1 (S2711 at 99°) FCC Filings:
Application: http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATAMD2008011400013&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

Original (1/2008): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=-141474

Grant (7/2009): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=727403

Bond (8/2009): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=737367

Build (7/2010): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=837188

Modification (7/2011): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=907941

Schedule-S (7/2011): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=908556

RB-2 (S2712 at 103°) FCC Filings:
Original (1/2008): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=-141476

Letter (7/2011): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=908362

Letter (7/2011): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=910484

Modification (7/2011): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=907995

Schedule-S (7/2011): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=908568



Sixto said:


> The FCC approvals from 7/28/2009 ... the Notes are from early September last time I checked:
> 
> 
> 
> *FCC Application*
> |
> *Company*
> |
> *Callsign*
> |
> *Slot*
> |
> *Notes*
> 
> SAT-LOA-20050210-00031|Intelsat|S2662|91°|Surrendered
> SAT-LOA-20060412-00042|Pegasus|S2698|91°|Surrendered
> |
> SAT-LOA-20060908-00099|
> *DirecTV|*
> S2711|99°|Paid (RB-1)
> SAT-LOA-20050210-00029|Intelsat|S2660|99°|Surrendered
> |
> SAT-LOA-20060908-00100|
> *DirecTV*
> |S2712|103°|Paid (RB-2)
> |
> SAT-LOA-19970605-00049|DirecTV| S2242|107°|Surrendered
> SAT-LOA-20020328-00052|EchoStar|S2442|107°|Paid
> SAT-LOA-20060412-00043|Pegasus|S2699|107°|Surrendered
> |
> SAT-LOA-20020328-00051|EchoStar|S2441|111°|Paid
> SAT-LOA-19970605-00050|
> *DirecTV*
> | S2243|111°|Paid (RB-4)


----------



## Sixto

Placeholder for reference information.

*Ku*
101° / 110° / 119°​
*Ka-Hi*
Spaceway-1 (LiL: 103°)

Spaceway-2 (LiL: 99°)

DirecTV-12 (CONUS: 103°)​
*Ka-Lo*
DirecTV-10 (CONUS/LiL: 103°)

DirecTV-11 (CONUS/LiL: 99°)

DirecTV-12 (LiL: 103°)​*Ka / BSS*
DirecTV-14 (CONUS/LiL: 99°)​
*Two Line Element (TLE) Format:*
A NORAD two-line element (TLE) set consists of two 69-character lines of data which describe in detail a spacecraft's trajectory around the earth.

Calculated and published by the U.S. government regularly.

http://celestrak.com/columns/v04n03/

http://www.space-track.org/tle_format.html​*Boeing DirecTV-10/DirecTV-11/DirecTV-12 Fact Sheet:* http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/dtv10_11_12/dtv10_11_12.html​


----------



## Sixto

Placeholder for historical information.

*D12*
9/2009-5/2010: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=164555

7/2008-9/2009: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=134248​*D11*
3/2008-8/2008: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=123236​*D10*
5/2010-6/2010: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=176796

7/2007-9/2007: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=91383​


----------



## Sixto

Other thread (D10/D12) went quiet for a couple of weeks, so good time to close.

Figured would finally re-open this thread, first few posts still need MUCH work.

Latest news is FCC applications for new earth stations (E100079 & E100080):E100079 (License): http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

E100080 (License): http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

E100079 (Amend): http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

E100080 (Amend): http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

E100079 (STA): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=824103

E100080 (STA): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=824104

STA Grant: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=826749​
Haven't yet looked at frequencies to see if this is needed for new D12 HD. At least new up-links to support D11 LiL.


----------



## doctor j

Origin application to communicate with KA sats:
D8, D9S, D10, D11, SW1, SW2.
Amendment to add D12

100079 SWUF KA3 at Tuscon Pima, AZ
100080 SWDF KA3 at Benson Cochise, AZ

Doctor j


----------



## HoTat2

doctor j said:


> Origin application to communicate with KA sats:
> D8, D9S, D10, D11, SW1, SW2.
> Amendment to add D12
> 
> 100079 SWUF KA3 at Tuscon Pima, AZ
> 100080 SWDF KA3 at Benson Cochise, AZ
> 
> Doctor j


Not exactly sure what the "D" stands for in "SWDF" for the Benson Cochise, Az. site, but still interesting info. for us techno-geeks nonetheless.


----------



## sarhaynes

If I remember the discussion in the D12 thread, the next sattelite that D* will launch is D14. I have looked, but I have not found a thread that has any information on filings or rumors. Do any of the sattelite guys out there have anything new and juicy for us.
I know that D* and E* both said they would have 100% LiL coverage by 2012, but I don't think either of them can do that without launching another bird (or two).
I still live in one of the 6% of the country that D* still doesn't cover.


----------



## Shades228

I don't recall any announcement from DirecTV stating that they are doing 100% locals. Dish is using a marketing way to do it so that they comply with some statutes. Either way the last thing I read was just a PO to order them had been announced a while ago. You'll know if something starts to happen as Sixto, and Lamelefty will start posting FCC filings and hdtvfan0001 will somehow double his posts.


----------



## sarhaynes

Shades228 said:


> I don't recall any announcement from DirecTV stating that they are doing 100% locals.


I thought I remembered something about when they were both talking to Congress about the law that passed. I thought the caveat was that they were required to have 100% SD coverage by 2012 (the year could be off).

I guess this depends on your definition of "coverage" and "100%". :lol:


----------



## sarhaynes

veryoldschool said:


> Not much "news" but:
> http://www.satellitetvwiz.com/607/directv/space-systems-contracts-with-directv
> 
> Which points back to "us": http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=179143


Yeah, I kind of knew this "news". I was hoping something more recent. It has been 7 months since Loral supposedly starting constructing D14. Wikipedia says a 2013 launch date, but it had no references, so my guess is that its someone's guess.

I just know that the FCC paperwork has a lead time associated with it, so I hoping that someone that is "hooked in" might have some additional information.

The silence is deafening...


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sarhaynes said:


> Yeah, I kind of knew this "news". I was hoping something more recent. It has been 7 months since Loral supposedly starting constructing D14. Wikipedia says a 2013 launch date, but it had no references, so my guess is that its someone's guess.
> 
> I just know that the FCC paperwork has a lead time associated with it, so I hoping that someone that is "hooked in" might have some additional information.
> 
> The silence is deafening...


There is always silence between launches because the cycle from:

satellite order...to manufacturer...to test...to delivery...to launch is often measured in years, not months.


----------



## tkrandall

As far as Dish goes, the launch of spotbeam configured Questzsat-1 to 77W late this year will give them much increased capacity for LIL. The sat at 77 now is a CONUS bird with the beams pointed away from Canada border regions. Spots at 77w might also free up some markets in the east that are only on 129 (my presuming they will get moved off of 129 and to 77.) 

As far as DirecTV goes, I think their plans for migration of all remaining markets off of 72.5 and onto 99 or 103 is probabaly taking a lot of their 2011 focus and will of course eat up some portion of the available bandwidth there too.


----------



## HoTat2

My guess is that DirecTV-14 is going to be very similar to DirecTV-12 at 103 WL by providing Ka A-band CONUS beam service from 99 WL. Maybe a 99ca? 

The only major difference is it will likely have a full CONUS coverage reverse-DBS band payload unlike DirecTV-12's limited 4 spotbeam RB-2A package.


----------



## Shades228

If everything goes smoothly with reverse DBS I could see them putting it at the 101.


----------



## RAD

Shades228 said:


> If everything goes smoothly with reverse DBS I could see them putting it at the 101.


But it also has a Ka payload, does DIRECTV has licences for Ka at 101?


----------



## Shades228

RAD said:


> But it also has a Ka payload, does DIRECTV has licences for Ka at 101?


You mean KU and honestly I don't know if they can do KU at the 101. I would guess not but who knows what they have in the works.


----------



## sarhaynes

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There is always silence between launches because the cycle from:
> 
> satellite order...to manufacturer...to test...to delivery...to launch is often measured in years, not months.


So we are talking glacial speeds here. Then again with global warming, glaciers are moving faster...


----------



## RAD

Shades228 said:


> If everything goes smoothly with reverse DBS I could see them putting it at the 101.





RAD said:


> But it also has a Ka payload, does DIRECTV has licences for Ka at 101?





Shades228 said:


> You mean KU and honestly I don't know if they can do KU at the 101. I would guess not but who knows what they have in the works.


101 is Ku now and yes I meant Ka since part of the announcement said:



> The 1300 is a decades-proven, modular platform that has highest power capability and flexibility for a broad range of applications and it would enable DIRECTV 14 to use Ka-band and reverse band spectrum on a satellite that will help DIRECTV expand its HD programming to both national and local markets.


----------



## Shades228

sarhaynes said:


> So we are talking glacial speeds here. Then again with global warming, glaciers are moving faster...


No just right now there's really nothing to talk about. Once the FCC filings happen we'll talk for months about it. The first FCC filings will have what the bird is setup with and for. Orbital slot won't be correct but based on the load they setup on it we can usually tell what it's for and it's plans.

We will do that for a few months and then another filing will come out and we'll talk more for months then a launch date will be announced and we'll anticipate this for months and then finally it will launch which will let us argue about PPV and HD channels for a month while it gets into position. Then we start all over in about a year.


----------



## Shades228

RAD said:


> 101 is Ku now and yes I meant Ka since part of the announcement said:


You're right sorry it's been a long day. Time for some rest!


----------



## LameLefty

Directv's most recent investor day presentations made reference to D14 being launched in June 2013 but give no specifics. I would think the exact RF payload will depend on the results of testing of the RB-2A BSS payload which is on D12.


----------



## Richierich

LameLefty said:


> Directv's most recent investor day presentations made reference to D14 being launched in June 2013 but give no specifics. I would think the exact RF payload will depend on the results of testing of the RB-2A BSS payload which is on D12.


WOW, You Are A Rocket Scientist!!! Oh My God!!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

LameLefty said:


> Directv's most recent investor day presentations made reference to D14 being launched in June 2013 but give no specifics. I would think the exact RF payload will depend on the results of testing of the RB-2A BSS payload which is on D12.


Makes sense.

Amazingly...there was alot of chatter about BSS testing around D12's launch time...but there's been a black hole of no news since on that front since...


----------



## HarleyD

As I recall there was speculation that the extended IOT of D12 was to fully exercise and analyze the performance and capabilities of the RB-2A payload and the BSS technology.

At the same time there were others speculating that the unexpectedly long test period was an indication that something had gone horribly awry, and that didn't turn out to be the case.

If they did find out everything they needed to know with BSS on D12 I would not be at all surprised to see a fully functional BSS payload on D14.

Does anyone know when DirecTV would have to have their payload(s) ready to join to the satellite bus to meet a 6/2013 launch projection?


----------



## LameLefty

HarleyD said:


> Does anyone know when DirecTV would have to have their payload(s) ready to join to the satellite bus to meet a 6/2013 launch projection?


My SWAG would be that Directv would have to make sure that they have their RF system specs completely nailed down by Q1 2012 to get the systems fabricated and integrated into the spacecraft bus with sufficient schedule margin to allow for any glitches. Fortunately, nothing is particularly new or different in design of the spacecraft or the payloads - it's just the combination of parts is always at least somewhat unique, and some of them might have a long lead time. Hopefully, the RF systems subcontractor to Loral already has a set of preliminary high-level specifications to work from and has pre-ordered any longer lead-time items.


----------



## HarleyD

LameLefty said:


> My SWAG would be that Directv would have to make sure that they have their RF system specs completely nailed down by Q1 2012 to get the systems fabricated and integrated into the spacecraft bus with sufficient schedule margin to allow for any glitches. Fortunately, nothing is particularly new or different in design of the spacecraft or the payloads - *it's just the combination of parts is always at least somewhat unique, *and some of them might have a long lead time. Hopefully, the RF systems subcontractor to Loral already has a set of preliminary high-level specifications to work from and has pre-ordered any longer lead-time items.


I hope they get the Rally Sport package with the leather and wood interior.


----------



## sorrycharlie

HarleyD said:


> I hope they get the Rally Sport package with the leather and wood interior.


Dont forget the heated seats! Its mighty cold up there! :lol:


----------



## yosoyellobo

So how many new PPV will we be getting with the D14?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

yosoyellobo said:


> So how many new PPV will we be getting with the D14?


ZERO


----------



## evan_s

HoTat2 said:


> My guess is that DirecTV-14 is going to be very similar to DirecTV-12 at 103 WL by providing Ka A-band CONUS beam service from 99 WL. Maybe a 99ca?
> 
> The only major difference is it will likely have a full CONUS coverage reverse-DBS band payload unlike DirecTV-12's limited 4 spotbeam RB-2A package.


That would be my guess. D12 couldn't do Conus on the reverse-DBS band because it is licensed to both a Canadian company and DirecTV. The Canadian company filed first internationally so DirecTV has to avoid interfering with them. This pretty much limits it to spot beams as you could never get proper conus coverage with out having interference problems. I predict that long term a large amount of locals will be coming from it but probably not until much close to when they will have to replace D10.

There are 2 things that give me a little pause on having both bands be conus on D14.

1) Power limitations. 14/16 KA conus tps and 18 reverse-DBS conus tps would be quite a lot of power needed and I think more than current configs use.

2) LNBs. I'm assuming we'll all need new LNBs to get the new band which means lots of service calls or limiting what it is used for somehow.


----------



## inkahauts

evan_s said:


> That would be my guess. D12 couldn't do Conus on the reverse-DBS band because it is licensed to both a Canadian company and DirecTV. The Canadian company filed first internationally so DirecTV has to avoid interfering with them. This pretty much limits it to spot beams as you could never get proper conus coverage with out having interference problems. I predict that long term a large amount of locals will be coming from it but probably not until much close to when they will have to replace D10.
> 
> There are 2 things that give me a little pause on having both bands be conus on D14.
> 
> 1) Power limitations. 14/16 KA conus tps and 18 reverse-DBS conus tps would be quite a lot of power needed and I think more than current configs use.
> 
> 2) LNBs. I'm assuming we'll all need new LNBs to get the new band which means lots of service calls or limiting what it is used for somehow.


As I recall, the Canadian company filed a lawsuit to stop them from even testing/using spots sayign they owned all the rights to that spectrum, even in the US, and had nothing to do with conus, because they didn't build a conus transponder into that bird at all.... And then add to that that the FCC and as far as I know no one else, ever even sided with the Canadian company. In fact, on some of the reply, it kind of sounded like the FCC said, well, STFU to them because I don't think they have shown any ability to actually launch a sat and use the spectrum. So I wonder about if they won't be able to use CONUS from that location anyway... Lefty and Sixto will remember for sure.


----------



## morgan79

what did we get with d-12 ?????


----------



## allen46901

A freind of mine got att-uadverse - The installer told me they now own Directv. Is this true? If so then has come they have tv channels that we Directv do not have access to , such as east and west feeds of TNT or TBS?


----------



## Crystal Pepsi Ball

allen46901 said:


> A freind of mine got att-uadverse - The installer told me they now own Directv. Is this true? If so then has come they have tv channels that we Directv do not have access to , such as east and west feeds of TNT or TBS?


AT&T does not own D* as of yet.


----------



## HoTat2

allen46901 said:


> A freind of mine got att-uadverse - The installer told me they now own Directv. Is this true? If so then has come they have tv channels that we Directv do not have access to , such as east and west feeds of TNT or TBS?


Utter nonsense from that U-verse installer ...

DirecTV is owned by the "DirecTV Group" which is in turn controlled by Liberty Media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DirecTV_Group


----------



## RAD

HoTat2 said:


> Utter nonsense from that U-verse installer ...
> 
> DirecTV is owned by the "DirecTV Group" which is in turn controlled by Liberty Media.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DirecTV_Group


IIRC Liberty is now out of the picture completly. DIRECTV now controls their own destiny.


----------



## xmetalx

allen46901 said:


> A freind of mine got att-uadverse - The installer told me they now own Directv. Is this true? If so then has come they have tv channels that we Directv do not have access to , such as east and west feeds of TNT or TBS?


Bahahaha, this always amuses me. ATT or Verizon claiming they own DTV. Fat chance :lol:


----------



## P Smith

Perhaps in some places AT&T offer bundle with DTV as it been here but with a competitor four years ago.


:backtotop: !!!


----------



## cypherx

I wish AT&T bought DirecTV. They sure have more HD channels. Plus maybe they would get the nice Mediaroom UI to work on the H2x/HR2x series receivers.


----------



## Doug Brott

P Smith said:


> Perhaps in some places AT&T offer bundle with DTV as it been here but with a competitor four years ago.
> 
> :backtotop: !!!


Yup .. Let's get back to talking about DIRECTV 14 .. The newest Satellite in DIRECTV's fleet. Heck, it might not even technically be born yet, but we know it's coming.


----------



## Sixto

I'll be updating the background info on D14 "soon". Was going back through all the filings last night, and need to summarize it a bit.

Target: 6/2013

A few items: Original (1/2008): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=-141474

Grant (7/2009): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=727403

Bond (8/2009): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=737367

Build (7/2010): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=837188
​


----------



## Satelliteracer

allen46901 said:


> A freind of mine got att-uadverse - The installer told me they now own Directv. Is this true? If so then has come they have tv channels that we Directv do not have access to , such as east and west feeds of TNT or TBS?


Or why AT&T customers don't have NFL Sunday Ticket, etc, etc.

There are channels D* has that AT&T doesn't and vice versa. No one has them all.


----------



## HoTat2

Sixto said:


> I'll be updating the background info on D14 "soon". Was going back through all the filings last night, and need to summarize it a bit.
> 
> Target: 6/2013
> 
> A few items: Original (1/2008): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=-141474
> 
> Grant (7/2009): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=727403
> 
> Bond (8/2009): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=737367
> 
> Build (7/2010): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=837188
> ​


Thanks for posting these memory refreshing documents Sixto. Do you have the accompanying Schedule S technical document for the "original" 1/2008 one?

Also looking at the 7/2010 "Build" document for the SS/L contract, I'm a little confused as to whether the official name this satellite is actually DirecTV-14, RB-1, or maybe both?


----------



## P Smith

Check D12 thread and you'll find similar duopoly in names.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> Check D12 thread and you'll find similar duopoly in names.


Well, extrapolating from DirecTV-12 I expected the new bird to be called DirecTV-14 and described in a similar manner as a "hybrid Ka/BSS satellite," but the FCC filing documentation here makes no mention of the name "DirecTV-14" and always refers to it as "RB-1"


----------



## doctor j

HoTat2 said:


> Thanks for posting these memory refreshing documents Sixto. Do you have the accompanying Schedule S technical document for the "original" 1/2008 one?
> 
> Also looking at the 7/2010 "Build" document for the SS/L contract, I'm a little confused as to whether the official name this satellite is actually DirecTV-14, RB-1, or maybe both?


Try here :

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...acct=857096&id_form_num=12&filing_key=-115983

D12 and RB-1A were separate call signs as i recall

Doctor j


----------



## doctor j

The schedule s documents cold be used to generate spotbeam gain maps. Anyone?

Doctor j


----------



## LameLefty

doctor j said:


> Try here :
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...acct=857096&id_form_num=12&filing_key=-115983
> 
> D12 and RB-1A were separate call signs as i recall
> 
> Doctor j


The FCC assigns separate call signs for each RF payload package. Indeed, the Directv 12 satellite bus carries 2 separate call signs, one for the Ka and one for BSS bands. The last time I dug through the authorizations, this was what I came up with:



Code:


[B][U]FCC Call Sign	Satellite Common Name[/U][/B]
S2430		Directv 4S
S2629		Directv 3
S2630		Directv 2
S2657, S2627	Directv 1
S2369		Directv 1R
S2455		Directv 7S
S2673, S2417	Directv 5
S2628, S2656	Directv 6
S2632		Directv 8 DBS
S2132 		Directv 8 Ka
S2669		Directv 9S DBS
S2689 		Directv 9S Ka
S2133 		Spaceway 2
S2191 		Spaceway 1
S2640 		Directv 11
S2641 		Directv 10
S2796		Directv 12/RB-2A (BSS)
S2797		Directv 12/RB-2A (Ka)
S2693		Directv 13  (110W) ([B]surrendered authorization[/B])
S2711		Directv 14/RB-1 (Directv BSS-99W)
S2712		RB-2 (Directv BSS-103W)
S2242		RB-3 (107W ???) ([B]surrendered authorization[/B])
S2243		RB-4 ([B]101W originally, now 110W[/B])
S2244		RB-5 (119W) ([B]surrendered authorization[/B])
S2788		Directv 97W (FSS band) ([B]dismissed by delegated authority[/B])


----------



## HoTat2

doctor j said:


> Try here :
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...acct=857096&id_form_num=12&filing_key=-115983 ...


Thanks for the link. 

Though I think the Schedule S posted there is early and may have to be modified somewhat for the CONUS transponder listings at least, since they appear to number up to 20 (including two narrower 24 MHz Tps., "19A" and "20A") ranging from 17.3-17.8 GHz.

Since the actual BSS bandwidth today for CONUS is 100 MHz less at 17.3-17.7 GHz, I would guess that the RB-1 payload for DirecTV-14 will be the same 18 transponders carried by RB-2A aboard DirecTV-12.



> ... 12 and RB-1A were separate call signs as i recall
> 
> Doctor j


I think you meant "RB-2A" ...


----------



## HoTat2

doctor j said:


> The schedule s documents cold be used to generate spotbeam gain maps. Anyone?
> 
> Doctor j


What real spotbeams would those be for the RB-1 payload? According to the Schedule S RB-1 will comprise only three broad national/regional coverage beams. One for the U.S., AL., and HI. Another for Mexico, and a third one for Latin America.


----------



## doctor j

LameLefty said:


> The FCC assigns separate call signs for each RF payload package. Indeed, the Directv 12 satellite bus carries 2 separate call signs, one for the Ka and one for BSS bands. The last time I dug through the authorizations, this was what I came up with:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> [B][U]FCC Call Sign	Satellite Common Name[/U][/B]
> S2430		Directv 4S
> S2629		Directv 3
> S2630		Directv 2
> S2657, S2627	Directv 1
> S2369		Directv 1R
> S2455		Directv 7S
> S2673, S2417	Directv 5
> S2628, S2656	Directv 6
> S2632		Directv 8 DBS
> S2132 		Directv 8 Ka
> S2669		Directv 9S DBS
> S2689 		Directv 9S Ka
> S2133 		Spaceway 2
> S2191 		Spaceway 1
> S2640 		Directv 11
> S2641 		Directv 10
> S2796		Directv 12/RB-2A (BSS)
> S2797		Directv 12/RB-2A (Ka)
> S2693		Directv 13  (110W) ([B]surrendered authorization[/B])
> S2711		Directv 14/RB-1 (Directv BSS-99W)
> S2712		RB-2 (Directv BSS-103W)
> S2242		RB-3 (107W ???) ([B]surrendered authorization[/B])
> S2243		RB-4 ([B]101W originally, now 110W[/B])
> S2244		RB-5 (119W) ([B]surrendered authorization[/B])
> S2788		Directv 97W (FSS band) ([B]dismissed by delegated authority[/B])


A review of FCC filings reveals a few confusing duplicates.

Your list is extensive but did not mention:
S2679 a duplicate of the KA payload on D-8 (S2132)
S2688 a duplicate of the KA payload on D-9S (S2689)
S2692 a duplicate of the DBS replacement at 110 later withdrawn (D-13 S2693)

Doctor j


----------



## LameLefty

doctor j said:


> A review of FCC filings reveals a few confusing duplicates.
> 
> Your list is extensive but did not mention:
> S2679 a duplicate of the KA payload on D-8 (S2132)
> S2688 a duplicate of the KA payload on D-9S (S2689)
> S2692 a duplicate of the DBS replacement at 110 later withdrawn (D-13 S2693)
> 
> Doctor j


Yep, I left off some of the confusing entries, although in retrospect I can't remember how I decided which duplicate to leave off. :grin:


----------



## Sixto

Yep, it's fairly complicated. Some day I need to go back and re-review everything again, but since we had until June 2013 for the next launch, figured we'd have a breather for a while.


----------



## tkrandall

Does DirecTV have the 99w and 103w BSS slots all to themselves? Is/was the 99 allocation to be split with another party?


----------



## Sixto

tkrandall said:


> Does DirecTV have the 99w and 103w BSS slots all to themselves? Is/was the 99 allocation to be split with another party?





Sixto said:


> The FCC approvals from 7/28/2009 ... the Notes are from early September last time I checked:
> 
> 
> 
> *FCC Application*
> |
> *Company*
> |
> *Callsign*
> |
> *Slot*
> |
> *Notes*
> 
> SAT-LOA-20050210-00031|Intelsat|S2662|91°|Surrendered
> SAT-LOA-20060412-00042|Pegasus|S2698|91°|Surrendered
> |
> SAT-LOA-20060908-00099|
> *DirecTV|*
> S2711|99°|Paid (RB-1)
> SAT-LOA-20050210-00029|Intelsat|S2660|99°|Surrendered
> |
> SAT-LOA-20060908-00100|
> *DirecTV*
> |S2712|103°|Paid (RB-2)
> |
> SAT-LOA-19970605-00049|DirecTV|	S2242|107°|Surrendered
> SAT-LOA-20020328-00052|EchoStar|S2442|107°|Paid
> SAT-LOA-20060412-00043|Pegasus|S2699|107°|Surrendered
> |
> SAT-LOA-20020328-00051|EchoStar|S2441|111°|Paid
> SAT-LOA-19970605-00050|
> *DirecTV*
> |	S2243|111°|Paid (RB-4)


This was the last I looked at it (above).


----------



## HoTat2

tkrandall said:


> Does DirecTV have the 99w and 103w BSS slots all to themselves? Is/was the 99 allocation to be split with another party?


AFAIK DirecTV presently has 99 W all to themselves for BSS (Reverse-DBS) service, but is in dispute with the "Ciel Satellite Group" of Ottawa Canada for 103 W.


----------



## tkrandall

HoTat2 said:


> AFAIK DirecTV presently has 99 W all to themselves for BSS (Reverse-DBS) service, but is in dispute with the "Ciel Satellite Group" of Ottawa Canada for 103 W.


You mean Canada does not have slots to themselves and have to fight for 103w? (or is this an Echostar play since they have use of the Ku Ciel bird at 72.7?)

I did not recall intelsat gave up on the 99 bid.

I am not sure I see how 111w fits long term with DirecTV's core "arc" of 99-103. Perhaps internationals and western market locals?

Speaking of Echostar, they have a BSS slot or two for their eastern arc as well do they not?


----------



## evan_s

tkrandall said:


> You mean Canada does not have slots to themselves and have to fight for 103w? (or is this an Echostar play since they have use of the Ku Ciel bird at 72.7?)
> 
> I did not recall intelsat gave up on the 99 bid.
> 
> I am not sure I see how 111w fits long term with DirecTV's core "arc" of 99-103. Perhaps internationals and western market locals?
> 
> Speaking of Echostar, they have a BSS slot or two for their eastern arc as well do they not?


As I recall the ITU allowed both Canada and the US to grant licenses for 103 for BSS. In the past they have only allowed one or the other to grant licenses for a particular slot. Because the Canadian government worked faster, Ciel did get their application to the ITU first so they have priority for using BSS at 103. The assumption is that should be for canadian coverage basically leaving DirecTV to avoid interfering with their signal but they have also tried to argue that any usage by DirecTV poses an interference risk so shouldn't be allowed. Thus my expectation that it will end up being used for spots for locals as Conus is not going to be possible with out interference problems.

I don't think it will be used for locals as they seem to already have a nice hunk of bandwidth at 103 BSS which is pretty much limited to just that. Specialty programing, like international channels seems likely. It is nicely located near 110 and should work well as part of an SL6. It might even fight into the existing stack plan with 110/119 since it's a shared BSS slot and BSS is already short a few TPs.

I do recall some BSS slots for Echostart and the eastern arc too but don't have details handy.


----------



## wmb

LameLefty said:


> Yep, I left off some of the confusing entries, although in retrospect I can't remember how I decided which duplicate to leave off. :grin:


I guess what would help my confusion is getting an answer to this... How many satellites are they on the hook to launch, and by when. From the listing, it looks like we will see the following launched:

RB-1 (along with DirecTV 14) at 99W
RB-2 at 103W
RB-4 at 110W

Of these, only RB-1/DirecTV 14 is under contract.

Of course, I also am one who likes to think of these birds as "black boxes" that magicly make them moving pictures show up on that flat panel thing on the other side of the room.


----------



## LameLefty

wmb said:


> I guess what would help my confusion is getting an answer to this... How many satellites are they on the hook to launch, and by when. From the listing, it looks like we will see the following launched:
> 
> RB-1 (along with DirecTV 14) at 99W
> RB-2 at 103W
> RB-4 at 110W
> 
> Of these, only RB-1/DirecTV 14 is under contract.
> 
> Of course, I also am one who likes to think of these birds as "black boxes" that magicly make them moving pictures show up on that flat panel thing on the other side of the room.


That's actually an interesting question. There are certain regulatory milestones that Directv MUST by law meet with regard to these licenses, barring some kind of petition for relief for special circumstances. I think they have a year or so to decide what to do with the RB-2 and RB-4 allocations, but I haven't looked at the timeline lately. Sixto probably has all that stuff memorized by now. :grin:

However, it's not just additional bandwidth that has to be considered, it's maintenance of existing bandwidth. Per their recent investor presentations, some of the older Ku birds are nearing their design lifespan. D5 has less than 3-1/2 years of life expectancy left, although it has fuel for quite a bit longer. But it's not just station-keeping fuel that determines lifespan. There's also transponder health, spacecraft electronics/control systems, solar array and battery health, etc. Only Directv's technical staff know how the spacecraft is doing as it gets older, but age-related degradation is a fact of life in engineering. Next up on the "lifespan report" is D4S with predicted lifespan in late 2016, and then D8 and SW1 in mid-2017, and SW2 in mid-2018 . . . so one hopes that Directv has a well thought-out plan for the mid-term future going forward.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

So basically I have no hope of getting HD locals in DMA 115 until 2014 at the earliest. Total crock of s***.


----------



## aa9vi

SPACEMAKER said:


> So basically I have no hope of getting HD locals in DMA 115 until 2014 at the earliest. Total crock of s***.


Buy the AM21 and an outdoor antenna. You'll get your locals then.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

aa9vi said:


> Buy the AM21 and an outdoor antenna. You'll get your locals then.


I have an AM21 connected to an HR24 and all of my locals come in nicely. At the time of my post I had an HR20 and I was having severe multi-path issues. Every thing is working great now.

But still, not getting HD locals in DMA115 is pathetic. And no one seems to be able to explain why which pretty frustrating.


----------



## Shades228

SPACEMAKER said:


> I have an AM21 connected to an HR24 and all of my locals come in nicely. At the time of my post I had an HR20 and I was having severe multi-path issues. Every thing is working great now.
> 
> But still, not getting HD locals in DMA115 is pathetic. And no one seems to be able to explain why which pretty frustrating.


Because of $$.

:backtotop


----------



## ejjames

In my parents town of Minot, ND, they finally got locals last year except for FOX, which is odd because in Minot, both FOX and ABC are owned by the same company.

Don't ask me why anyone in that town would sign up for LIL when you still need an antenna for FOX. Also, the "local" affiliate is the Bismarck affiliate 90 miles away.


----------



## P Smith

ejjames said:


> In my parents town of Minot, ND, they finally got locals last year except for FOX, which is odd because in Minot, both FOX and ABC are owned by the same company.
> 
> Don't ask me why anyone in that town would sign up for LIL when you still need an antenna for FOX. Also, the "local" affiliate is the Bismarck affiliate 90 miles away.


And again: :backtotop PLEASE!


----------



## adkinsjm

ejjames said:


> In my parents town of Minot, ND, they finally got locals last year except for FOX, which is odd because in Minot, both FOX and ABC are owned by the same company.
> 
> Don't ask me why anyone in that town would sign up for LIL when you still need an antenna for FOX. Also, the "local" affiliate is the Bismarck affiliate 90 miles away.


Not true. The ABC affiliate is owned by Forum Communications and the FOX affiliate is owned by Prime Cities Broadcasting. FOX used to operate the ABC affiliate, but now the CBS affiliate operates the ABC station.

BTW, all of the Big Four networks have full-power transmitters in Minot. That's why they have their own call signs.

I lived in Dickinson until a few weeks ago and the CBS, NBC, and PBS stations had their own call signs. ABC is carried as a digital subchannel off the CBS station, while FOX is operating as a translator.

The reason FOX isn't carried is that News Corp. want a piece of the fees that DirecTV would pay the affiliate. News Corp. isn't approving any new retransmission consent agreement for non-owned stations.


----------



## P Smith

adkinsjm,
Could tell me what is your side thread have common with the thread's topic ?


----------



## Sixto

A little satellite stuff from last week:http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021346616​Older:http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021341540

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021341538 <-- good stuff in here​


----------



## P Smith

Yeah, I'd like last page - a picture.


----------



## cypherx

Ok so they can get away with 0.2 degree spacing instead of 0.4 degree now? That's an improvement.


----------



## Sixto

cypherx said:


> Ok so they can get away with 0.2 degree spacing instead of 0.4 degree now? That's an improvement.


The most important is what license(s) you can get.


----------



## HoTat2

Think the limit is actually .25° to be exact. But these are co-location distances not separately resolvable by the subscriber dish.


----------



## P Smith

From FCC papers:

licensed DTV Ka:

99.115 W
99.225

100.85
101.10

102.765
102.815
102.925

and 17/24 GHz BSS:

99.175

102.765
102.825

110.9


----------



## doctor j

Given this info today:

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

Modification to add Puerto Rico beam to CONUS antenna and slightly adjust orbital slot from 99.175 to 99.235.

Doctor j


----------



## espnjason

doctor j said:


> Given this info today:
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number
> 
> Modification to add Puerto Rico beam to CONUS antenna and slightly adjust orbital slot from 99.175 to 99.235.
> 
> Doctor j


Will that mean a possible lineup enhancement for those with the 'Mas' or 'En Español' package?


----------



## spear61

RB 4 111W License Surrender

Surrender


----------



## Tom Robertson

spear61 said:


> RB 4 111W License Surrender
> 
> Surrender


Great find, spear61!


> DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC ("DIRECTV") hereby surrenders the authorization issued by grant stamp on July 28, 2009 to launch and operate DIRECTV RB-4, a 17/24 GHz BSS satellite, at the 110.9° W.L. orbital location.
> 
> DIRECTV takes this action reluctantly, as it has to date proceeded diligently to develop its 17/24 GHz BSS assets. *DIRECTV has satisfied all payment obligations under its satellite construction contract with Space Systems/Loral, and recently completed Critical Design Review of this satellite along with the two other 17/24 GHz BSS satellites it is authorized to operate. *Now that this preliminary work has been done, DIRECTV would have to commit to a rapidly escalating payment schedule to, among other things, cover the cost of long lead items and begin actual construction of DIRECTV RB-4. Unfortunately, in its ongoing review of the U.S. priority for this satellite under the International Telecommunication Union ("ITU") rules, DIRECTV has reached the conclusion that claims of other administrations with superior priority (including Canada, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) are increasingly likely to result in actual satellites with priority over DIRECTV either at or close to its assigned position. For example, Canada has licensed one 17/24 GHz BSS operator at 111.1° W.L. and another at 113° W.L.
> 
> In these circumstances, DIRECTV cannot justify proceeding further to develop this authorization given the substantial risk that its investment of hundreds of millions of dollars could be rendered essentially useless due to the inability to operate in the presence of non-U.S.-licensed systems with superior ITU priority.2


Note the portion I bolded. DIRECTV has made progress on the other two BSS satellites. No details except looks like Space Systems/Loral has the contract for these two satellites as well.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## RAD

So the way I read it, it sounds like they really didn't want to give up the license but looking at other claims for adjacent slots they felt they wouldn't be actually allowed to put a satellite there, or am I reading it wrong?


----------



## Tom Robertson

RAD said:


> So the way I read it, it sounds like they really didn't want to give up the license but looking at other claims for adjacent slots they felt they wouldn't be actually allowed to put a satellite there, or am I reading it wrong?


Pretty much it. They don't want to spend hundreds of millions on a satellite they probably won't be able to operate in the US.

I wonder if behind the scenes they were unable to get a waiver on the milestones timelines until the courts cleared up the rights over the US. Or if they decided it wasn't even worth the effort based upon prior experience with the international courts.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## spear61

"For example, Canada has licensed one 17/24 GHz BSS operator at 111.1° W.L. and another at 113° W.L."

I wonder about this statement since Industry Canada shows no operating or authorized but unconstructed BSS satellites at those slots.

Authorized and Approved Canadian Satellites


----------



## HoTat2

So let me get this straight;

DIRECTV initially had three satellites to be constructed by SS/L, which I assume were DIRECTV14/RB-1 (99W), RB-2 (103W), and RB-4 (110W) (since RB-3 at 107W) was previously surrendered).

Therefore now with RB-4 being surrendered, that currently leaves only DIRECTV14/RB-1 and RB-2 to be made by SS/L?


----------



## Tom Robertson

HoTat2 said:


> So let me get this straight;
> 
> DIRECTV initially had three satellites to be constructed by SS/L, which I assume were DIRECTV14/RB-1 (99W), RB-2 (103W), and RB-4 (110W) (since RB-3 at 107W) was previously surrendered).
> 
> Therefore now with RB-4 being surrendered, that currently leaves only DIRECTV14/RB-1 and RB-2 to be made by SS/L?


The only question I have is are D14 and RB-1 the same satellite or two satellites? Otherwise I think you are spot on.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## HoTat2

Tom Robertson said:


> The only question I have is are D14 and RB-1 the same satellite or two satellites? Otherwise I think you are spot on.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


The original SS/L press release for DIRECTV-14 linked to on page one of this thread mentions more than once of an "RDBS" payload in addition to the Ka-band one.

So I think they must be the same, though calling it simply "RB-1" in the FCC correspondence without ever mentioning it as actually a Ka/RB-1 band hybrid is confusing.


----------



## spear61

HoTat2 said:


> The original SS/L press release for DIRECTV-14 linked to on page one of this thread mentions more than once of an "RDBS" payload in addition to the Ka-band one.
> 
> So I think they must be the same, though calling it simply "RB-1" in the FCC correspondence without ever mentioning it as actually a Ka/RB-1 band hybrid is confusing.


If D14 is BSS 17Ghz/KA it should be in this report

2011 BSS 17 Ghz/KA Report


----------



## bobnielsen

HoTat2 said:


> The original SS/L press release for DIRECTV-14 linked to on page one of this thread mentions more than once of an "RDBS" payload in addition to the Ka-band one.
> 
> So I think they must be the same, though calling it simply "RB-1" in the FCC correspondence without ever mentioning it as actually a Ka/RB-1 band hybrid is confusing.


Yes it is confusing, somewhat by necessity. One spacecraft with separate FCC licensing for the Ka and BSS portions of the payload.


----------



## Tom Robertson

HoTat2 said:


> The original SS/L press release for DIRECTV-14 linked to on page one of this thread mentions more than once of an "RDBS" payload in addition to the Ka-band one.
> 
> So I think they must be the same, though calling it simply "RB-1" in the FCC correspondence without ever mentioning it as actually a Ka/RB-1 band hybrid is confusing.


!rolling and I was the one who put the full press release into RAD's post last year. 

I'm pretty sure you are correct, thanks for reminding me. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## HoTat2

spear61 said:


> If D14 is BSS 17Ghz/KA it should be in this report
> 
> 2011 BSS 17 Ghz/KA Report


Well I guess it should show in that annual report, but strangely it doesn't. Only the call letters S2711 for the RB-1 payload authorized at 99.175°.

So far there is no known (to us at least) listing for the Ka band payload aboard the future DIRECTV 14.

Again another nice find on that document though ...


----------



## HoTat2

Tom Robertson said:


> !rolling and I was the one who put the full press release into RAD's post last year.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you are correct, thanks for reminding me.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Yes, and with the info in the additional document linked by spear61 is seems DIRECTV now has three BSS slots remaining.

99.175° for D14/RB-1, 102.765° apparently for the present RB-2A spot beam payload aboard D12 which is preliminary for RB-2 at 102.825° with full national coverage.


----------



## spear61

There were a bunch of KA band filings for 97W from three companies on the day the server crashed - Directv, Hughes, and Inmarsat Hawaii.

Most of them were filed within seconds or a minute of each other.
Going to be interesting to see how it shakes out. Sometimes, one gets it all and other times, they each get a percentage of the slot. Not sure how KA awards work.

I recall Echostar abandoning a KA slot a year or so ago. Can't remember where it was but this might be it.

Example filing - Directv


----------



## cypherx

spear61 said:


> There were a bunch of KA band filings for 97W from three companies on the day the server crashed - Directv, Hughes, and Inmarsat Hawaii.
> 
> Most of them were filed within seconds or a minute of each other.
> Going to be interesting to see how it shakes out. Sometimes, one gets it all and other times, they each get a percentage of the slot. Not sure how KA awards work.
> 
> I recall Echostar abandoning a KA slot a year or so ago. Can't remember where it was but this might be it.
> 
> Example filing - Directv


Is this to be run on existing Ka compatible equipment, or is this for new (future) satellite launches?

That would be a surprise increase in bandwidth if there was an existing bird out there that did Ku and Ka, but the Ka was just disabled all this time until a proper license could be granted.


----------



## Sixto

Thanks for the heads up. I used to check daily but hadn't checked in a while. Gotta get my checker running again on 64bit.


----------



## LameLefty

cypherx said:


> Is this to be run on existing Ka compatible equipment, or is this for new (future) satellite launches?
> 
> That would be a surprise increase in bandwidth if there was an existing bird out there that did Ku and Ka, but the Ka was just disabled all this time until a proper license could be granted.


This is for the 97W slot. Directv holds a BSS license for that slot - it would be additional bandwidth but would require (at the least) a new LNB, since 97W is not part of the "core" 99-101-103 Directv arc of orbital slots.


----------



## Sixto

This would be a really cool slot to get, with 48 transponders!

Here's one of the more interesting documents: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=910785​


----------



## Davenlr

Sixto said:


> This would be a really cool slot to get, with 48 transponders!
> 
> Here's one of the more interesting documents: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=910785​





> Using these uplink facilities, the DIRECTV 97W system and associated ground Ka-band assets will be capable of transmitting over 200 channels of HD programming.


Is that 200 more, or the 200 they already have? Would they just move the two spaceways over there, and use that slot for as the application said, niche, foreign language, etc? Or are they talking about a new satellite they havent launched yet, which would be years down the pipe?


----------



## LameLefty

Sixto said:


> This would be a really cool slot to get, with 48 transponders!
> 
> Here's one of the more interesting documents: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=910785​


It's interesting that, according to that document, the only other ITU applications for the slot are from the UK, Papua New Guinea and Malaysia. I mean, WTF seriously? Those countries aren't anywhere close to 97W longitude.

Have you had the time to pull and research the document mentioned in Footnote 1 to see how/why this Ka slot came open? I'm curious is Directv will use any of its currently-licensed BSS slots as bargaining fodder to smooth this application. It seems to me that additional Ka bandwidth would better fit Directv's existing systems and plans than BSS systems, but I could be wrong.

EDITED TO ADD: Okay, the footnote refers to Echostar's surrendered license for that location.


----------



## HoTat2

Anybody got the link for the accompanying Schedule S for this LOA request?


----------



## Sixto

Davenlr said:


> Is that 200 more, or the 200 they already have? Would they just move the two spaceways over there, and use that slot for as the application said, niche, foreign language, etc? Or are they talking about a new satellite they havent launched yet, which would be years down the pipe?


240 more, assuming 5 per, which may be low considering newer technologies and the switch to SS/L for the sats.


----------



## Sixto

LameLefty said:


> Have you had the time to pull and research the document mentioned in Footnote 1 to see how/why this Ka slot came open?


Yep, Echostar, but I thought that was long ago. Haven't had time to dig much yet, been away. Man, I need to fix my FCC checker (broke when I switched to 64bit), also some recent changes to RB-1 and RB-2 for Puerto Rico and location.


----------



## Sixto

HoTat2 said:


> Anybody got the link for the accompanying Schedule S for this LOA request?


Yep, it's out there. Will attach here.


----------



## Sixto

Here you go ... Schedule-S:http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=911366​


----------



## cypherx

"Sixto" said:


> This would be a really cool slot to get, with 48 transponders!
> 
> Here's one of the more interesting documents: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=910785


Wow nice find. That sounds great! Now too bad it was stated that people will need new equipment (lnb) to get this. It's like if they would do an all mpeg4 conversion... It takes lots of equipment swaps (on site, mail order, etc..). So what kind of timeframe and what kind of budget would they allow for truck rolls to change out LNB's?

Edit: I see niche and foreign language content. That greatly reduces the number of truck rolls. Long term it really provides a competitive edge to have that sort of high quality programming for those who are interested.


----------



## Davenlr

I agree Cypherx... There is a huge demand in foreign language programming, and having a separate KA slot with that kind of bandwidth would free them up from having to decide on whether to use current core transponders for that material. They could also shove all the channels they are paid or required to carry to that satellite, and just roll a truck to upgrade the lnb for those customers who request the satellite, even perhaps, at the customers expense. NASA HD, TELEMUNDO, Free Speech TV, lots of stuff they could put up there. They could move all the spanish channels there as well. Not sure how much space that would free up for English on 99/103, but it sure would be good for their future. I think it would be a good move, especially considering there is already a "spot" on the current LNB housing for a feedhorn at about that location.


----------



## P Smith

"_Not sure how much space that would free up for English on 99/103_" - I recall there is none foreign language channels ...


----------



## Kevin F

"Davenlr" said:


> .... I think it would be a good move, especially considering there is already a "spot" on the current LNB housing for a feedhorn at about that location.


Where? At 97W?


----------



## Davenlr

Kevin F said:


> Where? At 97W?


Yea, some of the LNBs (eagle aspen) have the full metal cover, and had the spot for the 97 satellite position to be added (a new lnb, not added to current ones).

http://www.contractorsav.com/directv-SL5S-product

It might be close enough to add it right into the main 99/101/103 housing as well.


----------



## Sixto

Here's the Echostar reference: SURRENDER

SAT-MOD-20050308-00059 S2499 EchoStar Corporation

On March 9, 2009, EchoStar Corporation surrendered its authorization to operate a Ka-band geostationary satellite orbit Fixed-Satellite Service space station at the 97.0° W.L. orbital location. See Letters to Marlene H. Dortch from Pantelis Michalopoulos, Counsel for EchoStar Corporation, dated March 9, 2009 and May 24, 2011. The 18.3-18.8 GHz (space-to-Earth), 19.7-20.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), 28.35-28.6 GHz (Earth-to-space), and 29.25-30.0 GHz (Earth-to-space) frequency bands at the 97.0° W.L. orbital location are now available for reassignment pursuant to the Commission's first-come, first-served licensing process effective 2:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, August 9, 2011. At that time, applicants may file applications for new space stations, market access by non-U.S. licensed space stations, modifications to licensed space stations, or amendments to pending applications taking this announcement into account. Applications for the spectrum filed prior to this date and time will be dismissed as premature without prejudice to refiling.​
Here's some of the referenced Echostar letters:

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=699311

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=890323​
It is somewhat complicated as to what happened with Echostar and 97W.


----------



## P Smith

Kevin F said:


> Where? At 97W?


No way to do that - it should sit too close to existing 99W !

If he mistaken, but mentioned the spot for 95W, that could works (at least on my home made six LNBFs set for 119...95W with 1m reflector).


----------



## James Long

Sixto said:


> It is somewhat complicated as to what happened with Echostar and 97W.


The bottom line is they had too many unbuilt licenses, which put them in a position where they could not apply for more. They shed licenses that didn't fit in as well with their network.

If DirecTV can make 97 work for them that is great. With all the other active Ka slots and satellites DirecTV has a better chance of making it work.


----------



## LameLefty

James Long said:


> The bottom line is they had too many unbuilt licenses, which put them in a position where they could not apply for more. They shed licenses that didn't fit in as well with their network.


That may or may not turn out to be the same situation with Directv regarding their RB licenses. I'm sure there are some pretty compelling spreadsheets and risk matrices out there in the boardrooms regarding the costs of investing in "new" reverse-band receivers and LNBs for the new slots, plus equipment to make it all work in the stack plan, versus how to do the same with a frequency band Directv already has a great deal of experience and success with, and being able to add so much bandwidth so close to their existing core 99-101-103 arc.



> If DirecTV can make 97 work for them that is great. With all the other active Ka slots and satellites DirecTV has a better chance of making it work.


Being so close to the existing arc means that lines of site are likely to be less challenging for most existing Directv customers - still gotta figure out if existing reflectors would work or if they'd have to be tweaked for the new slot, and of course how to get the signals into the stack plan. I think a new revision of the SWiM firmware could probably make it work - of course, those have to be replaced/upgraded by a tech rather than through a software download, which increases implementation costs.


----------



## cypherx

LameLefty said:


> I think a new revision of the SWiM firmware could probably make it work - of course, those have to be replaced/upgraded by a tech rather than through a software download, which increases implementation costs.


Pardon my ignorance, but is the SWiM "guts" and firmware in the LNB itself? So swapping the LNB could accomplish this, correct?


----------



## LameLefty

"cypherx" said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but is the SWiM "guts" and firmware in the LNB itself? So swapping the LNB could accomplish this, correct?


If you have a SWiM LNB, then yes. If you have an installation with a separate SWiM8, SWiM16 or SWiM32 module (as I and many others do) then no.


----------



## Sixto

James Long said:


> The bottom line is they had too many unbuilt licenses, which put them in a position where they could not apply for more. They shed licenses that didn't fit in as well with their network.
> 
> If DirecTV can make 97 work for them that is great. With all the other active Ka slots and satellites DirecTV has a better chance of making it work.


Yup, what I was most curious about is why it took 2 years to resolve, the original surrender was announced in early 2009, and DirecTV tried to get the license then, but was rejected. We talked about it in the D12 thread.

Seems like it's finally resolved with Echostar, but the language is still a little curious, because it seems like they didn't get their $ back, but it got settled.

From last Friday (this was in addition to the surrender announcement that I posted up above, also from last Friday): SAT-MOD-20050308-00059 S2499 EchoStar Corporation

The Satellite Division has determined that EchoStar Corporation has met the March 8, 2007 commence physical construction milestone associated with its surrendered Ka-band space station authorization at the 97.0 ° W.L. orbital location (Call Sign S2499). As a result, the amount due under bond for the surrendered authorization is $750,000 as provided in the Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 02-34, 18 FCC Rcd 10760 (2003); Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, First Order on Reconsideration and Fifth Report and Order, IB Docket No. 02- 34, 19 FCC Rcd 12637 (2004), and 47 C.F.R. § 25.165(d).​


----------



## LameLefty

Sixto said:


> From last Friday (this was in addition to the surrender announcement that I posted up above, also from last Friday): SAT-MOD-20050308-00059 S2499 EchoStar Corporation
> 
> The Satellite Division has determined that EchoStar Corporation has met the March 8, 2007 commence physical construction milestone associated with its surrendered Ka-band space station authorization at the 97.0 ° W.L. orbital location (Call Sign S2499). As a result, the amount due under bond for the surrendered authorization is $750,000 as provided in the Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 02-34, 18 FCC Rcd 10760 (2003); Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, First Order on Reconsideration and Fifth Report and Order, IB Docket No. 02- 34, 19 FCC Rcd 12637 (2004), and 47 C.F.R. § 25.165(d).​


That to me looks like a classic government typo, or else there's a lot more under the table not shown in the documents. If the milestone had been met and the satellite truly begun building, why did Echostar voluntarily surrender their license? Was that satellite repurposed for another payload and orbital slot? And if it was met, why is the FCC charging them three quarters of a million bucks against their bond?


----------



## longrider

I dont see the reflectors being an issue, it is designed to go out to 119 on the west and is symmetrical so it should handle out to 83 on the east. As a SWM LNB would handle maybe 95%? of installs that would be simple and only the other 5% would need something designed, maybe even 6 cables from LNB to SWM switch?


----------



## Sixto

LameLefty said:


> That to me looks like a classic government typo, or else there's a lot more under the table not shown in the documents. If the milestone had been met and the satellite truly begun building, why did Echostar voluntarily surrender their license? Was that satellite repurposed for another payload and orbital slot? And if it was met, why is the FCC charging them three quarters of a million bucks against their bond?


Exactly, all good questions.

Here's the document that both quotes came from: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1353A1.pdf​
And the words from Echostar's 2nd letter (this year, link above):Pending before the Commission are two requests for the unconditional release of the bonds posted by EchoStar for satellite authorizations it has already surrendered - Call Signs S2499, a Ka-band satellite at 97º W.L., and S2636, a Ka-band satellite at 113º W.L. EchoStar hereby withdraws its request to unconditionally release the bond for S2636 and, in lieu of a forfeiture, will make arrangements with the Commission to make a payment in the amount of $750,000 to the Treasury in full satisfaction of this obligation. For the bond associated with S2499, EchoStar met the first two milestones, and has submitted a certification that it commenced construction, but the Commission has not requested additional information from EchoStar, or made a determination as to whether EchoStar met that milestone. Once the Commission makes such a determination, EchoStar will make the appropriate arrangements with the Commission to satisfy the remaining bond obligation.​


----------



## P Smith

I think it is fee for holding slot(s) , he-he pretty hefty amount to do that.


----------



## spear61

Sixto said:


> Exactly, all good questions.
> 
> Here's the document that both quotes came from: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1353A1.pdf​
> And the words from Echostar's 2nd letter (this year, link above):Pending before the Commission are two requests for the unconditional release of the bonds posted by EchoStar for satellite authorizations it has already surrendered - Call Signs S2499, a Ka-band satellite at 97º W.L., and S2636, a Ka-band satellite at 113º W.L. EchoStar hereby withdraws its request to unconditionally release the bond for S2636 and, in lieu of a forfeiture, will make arrangements with the Commission to make a payment in the amount of $750,000 to the Treasury in full satisfaction of this obligation. For the bond associated with S2499, EchoStar met the first two milestones, and has submitted a certification that it commenced construction, but the Commission has not requested additional information from EchoStar, or made a determination as to whether EchoStar met that milestone. Once the Commission makes such a determination, EchoStar will make the appropriate arrangements with the Commission to satisfy the remaining bond obligation.​


But, Echostar has now come full circle with the Hughes merger. They are using the Hughes entity to reapply (Jupiter 97W) for license for broadband service at 97W.

Hughes 97W


----------



## LameLefty

P Smith said:


> I think it is fee for holding slot(s) , he-he pretty hefty amount to do that.


No. The _initial bond_ is for holding the slot - it's refundable upon meeting certain milestones.

[strike]Re-thinking this, I suspect what had happened was Echostar asked for the entire $3M to be released since they surrendered the slot, and the FCC looked at what they had actually done to secure its use during the time it was held, determined that they'd at least started construction of a satellite so that warranted return of $2.25M, but decided to hold the rest ($750K) because of the delay and/or lack of progress on the other milestones while the slot was held.[/strike]

Never mind - see posts above.


----------



## harsh

Can Ka slots be spaced only 2 degrees apart?


----------



## Go Beavs

harsh said:


> Can Ka slots be spaced only 2 degrees apart?


I think DIRECTV is doing that already. They have a Ka sat in the 101 slot and, of course, 99 and 103.


----------



## P Smith

harsh said:


> Can Ka slots be spaced only 2 degrees apart?


How ? What reasons you have in mind what would ALLOW positioning Ka sats close as C-band sats ? Not following Ku sats rules ?


----------



## P Smith

Go Beavs said:


> I think DIRECTV is doing that already. They have a Ka sat in the 101 slot and, of course, 99 and 103.


Anything transmitting in Ka range from 101W ?


----------



## LameLefty

Directv is already using Ka band 2º apart - there are Ka backhauls at 101º already.

See page 12 and Appendix A of the document Sixto provided for discussion of interference analysis.


----------



## Go Beavs

P Smith said:


> Anything transmitting in Ka range from 101W ?





LameLefty said:


> Directv is already using Ka band 2º apart - there are Ka backhauls at 101º already.
> 
> See page 12 and Appendix A of the document Sixto provided for discussion of interference analysis.


Yup, and there's some general DIRECTV Ka info in this thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=82295


----------



## P Smith

Go Beavs said:


> Yup, and there's some general DIRECTV Ka info in this thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=82295


Doesn't count - those freq should be allocated in different range, therefor is not receivable by subscriber's disnes/LNBFs.


----------



## LameLefty

P Smith said:


> Doesn't count - those freq should be allocated in different range, therefor is not receivable by subscriber's disnes/LNBFs.


Stop being pedantic. Doesn't necessarily matter - RF is wavelike and interference can occur even without the customer's LNB being able to receive it.

Besides, and more to the point, interference is already addressed by Directv in its documentation (I provided the reference above). If you'd take the time to read it you'd realize it isn't an issue.


----------



## Go Beavs

P Smith said:


> Doesn't count - those freq should be allocated in different range, therefor is not receivable by subscriber's disnes/LNBFs.


Sorry, I'm no RF expert. I just figured Ka is Ka. Assumptions can bite you (me) sometimes.


----------



## LameLefty

Go Beavs said:


> Sorry, I'm no RF expert. I just figured Ka is Ka. Assumptions can bite you (me) sometimes.


His answer is irrelevant - see my subsequent post.


----------



## P Smith

Go Beavs said:


> Sorry, I'm no RF expert. I just figured Ka is Ka. Assumptions can bite you (me) sometimes.


NP, perhaps we are talking about SPECIAL allocation for 101W Ka's use. Not for us, mere mortal.


----------



## Tom Robertson

P Smith said:


> Doesn't count - those freq should be allocated in different range, therefor is not receivable by subscriber's disnes/LNBFs.


The frequency range for the slot is the same as for 99° and 103°. That the block of frequency is broken up differently at 101° doesn't matter. The wavelengths "could" interfere.

What DIRECTV does is spotbeam the backhauls at 101° to minimize the likelihood of interference.

So what would DIRECTV do at 97°? Since they've specified transponders, I'm guessing they have enough experience with Ka they know they can make 2° spacing work.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## P Smith

Tom Robertson said:


> The frequency range for the slot is the same as for 99° and 103°. That the block of frequency is broken up differently at 101° doesn't matter. The wavelengths "could" interfere.
> 
> What DIRECTV does is spotbeam the backhauls at 101° to minimize the likelihood of interference.
> 
> So what would DIRECTV do at 97°? Since they've specified transponders, I'm guessing they have enough experience with Ka they know they can make 2° spacing work.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Perhaps Ka Spot Beams only.


----------



## P Smith

May be it's time to make new dedicated thread for Ka at 97W? 

And clean the thread from off-topic posts ?


----------



## veryoldschool

Tom Robertson said:


> The frequency range for the slot is the same as for 99° and 103°. That the block of frequency is broken up differently at 101° doesn't matter. The wavelengths "could" interfere.
> 
> What DIRECTV does is spotbeam the backhauls at 101° to minimize the likelihood of interference.
> 
> So what would DIRECTV do at 97°? Since they've specified transponders, I'm guessing they have enough experience with Ka they know they can make 2° spacing work.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


 From the FCC website here: http://transition.fcc.gov/ib/sd/esa/faq.html#FAQ6


> The Commission's two-degree orbital spacing policy, which was established in 1983, maximizes the number of satellites in orbit by ensuring that Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) satellites in geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO) can operate without causing harmful interference to other GSO FSS satellites located as close as two degrees away. Prior to the Commission's adoption of the two-degree spacing policy, GSO FSS satellites were usually spaced three or four degrees apart. By adopting rules that enabled satellite operators to place their space stations two degrees apart, the Commission was able to accommodate more GSO FSS satellites. The two-degree orbital spacing policy is important for earth station applicants because the Commission, among other things, adopted a number of rules that would ensure that earth stations communicating with satellites at two-degree orbital separations would not cause unacceptable interference to adjacent satellite systems using the same frequency bands. These rules include earth station antenna diameter and performance requirements, and power restrictions embodied in 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.134, 25.209, 25.211, and 25.212. See Routine Licensing of Earth Stations in the 6 GHz and 14 GHz Bands Using Antennas Less than 9 Meters and 5 Meters in Diameter, respectively, for Both Full Transponder and Narrowband Transmissions, Declaratory Order, 2 FCC Rcd 2149 (Com. Car. Bur., 1987), cited in 47 C.F.R. § 25.134. For more information on the Commission's two-degree orbital spacing policy, see Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service and Related Revisions of Part 25 of the Rules and Regulations, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 81-704, FCC 83-184, 54 Rad. Reg. 2d 577 (rel. Aug. 16, 1983); summary printed in Licensing Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service, 48 F.R. 40233 (Sept. 6, 1983).


----------



## David Ortiz

From 2007:



Tom Robertson said:


> C, Ku, Ka
> Unlike C band transponders, Ku and Ka do not have standardized transponder frequencies (although, DBS usage of Ku has been standardized by the FCC and ITU). Outside of the dbs satellites, to use a Ku transponder, an engineer needs to verify (and double check) the specific frequencies for that particular satellite.
> 
> Ka is even more flexible. D8 and D9s were always surprising to me in that they only had a very few Ka transponders. What I did not realize is that each transponder's signal is 250mhz wide. While not very useful for dbs purposes, they are quite useful for backhauling OTA signals around the country ultimately for uplink to the spotbeams from the satellites at 99° or 103°.
> 
> Ka satellite locations can operate with 2 degrees of separation, narrower than the 4 degree necessary for Ku.
> 
> Typical Ka dbs licenses allow two 500 mhz ranges of downlinking: 19.7-20.2 GHz (A-band) and 18.3-18.8GHz (B-band) as well as three more of uplinking. Ku licenses allow one 500 mhz range each.
> 
> Directv standard Ku transponders, numbered 1-32, are 29mhz wide with 24mhz usable. For D10 and D11, Ka transponders are numbered 1-24, and are 40mhz wide with 36mhz usable. S1 and S2 can be operated as eight transponders 62.5mhz wide.
> 
> Ku transponders alternate polarity and are offset in frequency much like two courses of bricks. Ka transponders also alternate polarity, but operate on the exact same frequency for adjacent even and odd transponders.
> 
> Because of the smaller guard frequenies between transponder channels and the overlapping structure of Ka vs. the offset used by Ku, Ka gives about 10% more usable bandwidth.
> Ku usable bandwidth from 500mhz available is 384mhz.
> Ka usable bandwidth from 500mhz available is 432mhz.


----------



## P Smith

You can read and re post here for long period of time ... it will didn't change your LNBF to 4x or 6x; it's already complicated enough to give headache during manufacturing and installs.


----------



## David Ortiz

P Smith said:


> You can read and re post here for long period of time ... it will didn't change your LNBF to 4x or 6x; it's already complicated enough to give headache during manufacturing and installs.


We're a long way from swapping out hardware, of course, but it is interesting that the 2 degree spacing was talked about long ago.


----------



## P Smith

Sure, yes. My point is our dishes and LNBF still use 4 degree spacing.

BTW, I will remind you another factor - 12' dish has 1.4 degree diagram and can separate two sats at 2 degree spacing, yet 1m [39"] or worst 24".


----------



## Tom Robertson

P Smith said:


> Sure, yes. My point is our dishes and LNBF still use 4 degree spacing.
> 
> BTW, I will remind you another factor - 12' dish has 1.4 degree diagram and can separate two sats at 2 degree spacing, yet 1m [39"] or worst 24".


Well... The dish and LNBF only use 4° spacing for an individual frequency grouping, they use 2° spacing between LNBFs.

Another theory is that DIRECTV didn't want to manufacture an LNBF head that tried to fit both Ka and Ku at the 101° slot. Sure it can be done, but at what manufacturing precision and cost?

Perhaps 97° is a no brainer since there isn't anything else there.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Davenlr

Does DirecTv own the KA slow at 101?


----------



## Tom Robertson

Davenlr said:


> Does DirecTv own the KA slow at 101?


Yes. DIRECTV uses it for backhauling.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Davenlr

Tom Robertson said:


> Yes. DIRECTV uses it for backhauling.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Ok, thanks Tom. Knew about the backhauls, but thought it was a separate license for the trip back on KA.


----------



## harsh

veryoldschool said:


> From the FCC website here: http://transition.fcc.gov/ib/sd/esa/faq.html#FAQ6


The portion of the article you quote speaks to FSS that is both very low power and below DBS band in frequency.

The references to dishes smaller than 9m and 5m suggests they're not talking about multi-focal offset "pizza dishes".


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> The portion of the article you quote speaks to FSS that is both very low power and below DBS band in frequency.
> 
> The references to dishes smaller than 9m and 5m suggests they're not talking about multi-focal offset "pizza dishes".


Since it dates back to 1983, I'd say it has everything to do with the spacing of the SATs and the uplinking to them, leaving the downlink "issues" to the providers to sort out, with the parabolic shape of the reflector.


----------



## harsh

veryoldschool said:


> Since it dates back to 1983, I'd say it has everything to do with the spacing of the SATs and the uplinking to them, leaving the downlink "issues" to the providers to sort out, with the parabolic shape of the reflector.


I thought the discussion was whether or not any DBS provider could use 97W for additional Ka broadcast capacity as opposed to uplinks or backhauls.


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> I thought the discussion was whether or not any DBS provider could use 97W for additional Ka broadcast capacity as opposed to uplinks or backhauls.


I'd say enough posts here have shown the 2º spacing has proven to work, so 97W wouldn't be an issue, "other than" if our [not yours] current dish would need to be reshaped.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Can Ka slots be spaced only 2 degrees apart?





P Smith said:


> How ? What reasons you have in mind what would ALLOW positioning Ka sats close as C-band sats ? Not following Ku sats rules ?





LameLefty said:


> Directv is already using Ka band 2º apart - there are Ka backhauls at 101º already.
> 
> See page 12 and Appendix A of the document Sixto provided for discussion of interference analysis.


The higher frequency range of Ka, and the power levels of modern satellites, allow the smaller dishes we have on our roofs to work more like the 6 foot, multiple feed horn dishes used at earth stations for C-band. If you can make the LNBF only really see a 2 degree patch of sky, it doesn't really matter if there is another satellite 2 degrees away...the 97 LNBF won't see the 99 sats and viceversa.


----------



## HoTat2

veryoldschool said:


> I'd say enough posts here have shown the 2º spacing has proven to work, so 97W wouldn't be an issue, "other than" if our [not yours] current dish would need to be reshaped.


I would say so as well, were it not for Tom's earlier statement about the Ka-band payloads at 101 actually being spot-beamed to eliminate potential interference with 99 and 103.

If true, then we really have no working examples today of two Ka-band CONUS beam birds with 2 degree separation. Not at all saying it won't work of course, but just pointing that it wouldn't be correct to say DIRECTV is already using 2 degree adjacent Ka-band slots in the way DIRECTV-97W and the satellites at 99W are intended for.

This is all assuming Tom is correct about the Ka-band back-hauls at 101 being spot-beamed of course.


----------



## veryoldschool

HoTat2 said:


> I would say so as well, were it not for Tom's earlier statement about the Ka-band payloads at 101 actually being spot-beamed to eliminate potential interference with 99 and 103.
> 
> If true, then we really have no working examples today of two Ka-band CONUS beam birds with 2 degree separation. Not at all saying it won't work of course, but just pointing that it wouldn't be correct to say DIRECTV is already using 2 degree adjacent Ka-band slots in the way DIRECTV-97W and the satellites at 99W are intended for.
> 
> This is all assuming Tom is correct about the Ka-band back-hauls at 101 being spot-beamed of course.


What all of this really comes down to is the focus of both the ground uplink dish and the SAT receiving dish. Being the old fart that I am, I remember when the FCC ruling came out after testing and an engineer's discussion of this ruling and its "impact".
This really isn't much different that filtering of a tuner to keep out adjacent channels, but instead is the focusing of the dish signal, on the uplink path.
Think of all the CONUS & spot beams that our dishes "filter out" so they can receive the SAT that we want.

For those having a hard time with this, think of an adjustable flashlight that you can focus the beam with. The dish on the uplink works the same way.


----------



## Davenlr

HoTat2 said:


> I would say so as well, were it not for Tom's earlier statement about the Ka-band payloads at 101 actually being spot-beamed to eliminate potential interference with 99 and 103.
> 
> If true, then we really have no working examples today of two Ka-band CONUS beam birds with 2 degree separation.


2 degree spacing works on C band where the -3 db point on a standard 10' dish is much wider than a KU dish, and KA is even narrower (note the fine tuning adjusters needed for KA band?)

Turn your dish one degree, and see if you have any signal at all. Im sure the interference they are referring to, is interference from the ground station to neighbor satellites, not interference from the satellite to the ground stations.

With sufficiently large dishes at the uplink site, I have no worries they can avoid interference with a satellite 2 degrees away.


----------



## veryoldschool

Davenlr said:


> With sufficiently large dishes at the uplink site, I have no worries they can avoid interference with a satellite 2 degrees away.


Think DirecTV has that covered:


----------



## harsh

Davenlr said:


> 2 degree spacing works on C band where the -3 db point on a standard 10' dish is much wider than a KU dish, and KA is even narrower (note the fine tuning adjusters needed for KA band?).


C-band isn't scattered/diffused by atmosphere like the higher frequencies may be.

IIRC, the ITU believes that 3 degree spacing is necessary in the Ka band broadcast.


----------



## LameLefty

Again, this is SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED on p. 12 and Appendix A of the recently-filed Directv 97W Narrative document referenced by Sixto a couple of days ago, harsh and P Smith's vaguely-worded FUD notwithstanding.


----------



## Davenlr

harsh said:


> C-band isn't scattered/diffused by atmosphere like the higher frequencies may be.


All that would do is attenuate the signal, its not going to "move it" from 97 to 99 on the way down.


----------



## harsh

Titan25 said:


> The higher frequency range of Ka, and the power levels of modern satellites, allow the smaller dishes we have on our roofs to work more like the 6 foot, multiple feed horn dishes used at earth stations for C-band. If you can make the LNBF only really see a 2 degree patch of sky, it doesn't really matter if there is another satellite 2 degrees away...the 97 LNBF won't see the 99 sats and viceversa.


How do you reconcile "work like" and Ka rain fade?

Does anyone use a 6' dish for C-band?

The question remains: can a Ka satellite at 97W deliver a CONUS signal to DIRECTV subscribers that will work with a OTARD qualifying dish?

Would DISH Network have been able to use the slot for similar purposes?

While there are many posts in this thread, few, if any have addressed this important question with definitive answers based on RF theory or practice. Because DIRECTV subscribers are back to singing the the virtues of quality over quantity again, this would seem to be an important distinction.


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> How do you reconcile "work like" and Ka rain fade?
> 
> Does anyone use a 6' dish for C-band?
> 
> The question remains: can a Ka satellite at 97W deliver a CONUS signal to DIRECTV subscribers that will work with a OTARD qualifying dish?
> 
> Would DISH Network have been able to use the slot for similar purposes?
> 
> While there are many posts in this thread, few, if any have addressed this important question *with definitive answers based on RF theory or practice*. Because DIRECTV subscribers are back to singing the the virtues of quality over quantity again, this would seem to be an important distinction.


:nono: like you would even know any of these if they beat you over the head to get your attention. :nono:
"The only question" is really if our current reflectors will work for Ka from 97W, which may be the difference between the old AT-9 and the AU-9.


----------



## P Smith

More important, the projected DTV Ka sat @97W is offtopic and who knows if would be build:


> Given *the current absence of a construction contract for DIRECTV 97W*, it is difficult to assess what satellites will actually be operating at the nominal 97° W.L. position at the time that the satellite is to be launched. As such, *DIRECTV will certainly revisit this issue once a satellite construction contract is in place.*


P. 17 of that initial doc.


----------



## Davenlr

harsh said:


> Does anyone use a 6' dish for C-band?


Yes, I do. No issues with it at all, except low power from the satellite occasionally. I never have issues with other satellites next door. My actuator moves from one to the other, and the first disappears before the second appears.


----------



## LameLefty

P Smith said:


> More important, the projected DTV Ka sat @97W is offtopic and who knows if would be build:


No it is NOT off-topic. The topic is Directv satellite discussion. Parenthetically, it includes what we know about D14 because D14 was specifically mentioned in a recent investor presentation.


----------



## P Smith

Just keep the sidetrack for new 97W sat - what could be user friendly name of it ? D-15 ?


----------



## Tom Robertson

P Smith said:


> Just keep the sidetrack for new 97W sat - what could be user friendly name of it ? D-15 ?


From the DIRECTV request document: "DIRECTV 97W". 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## P Smith

Tom Robertson said:


> From the DIRECTV request document: "DIRECTV 97W".
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Nice try, but I did read that document and saw the quotation - that's why I did ask in hope someone _knowledgeable_ would know an answer.
My guess (I'm not pretend to know) has been shown.


----------



## Tom Robertson

With so many slots already active, it no longer makes sense to give them names until they are approved and construction is contracted. Anything else would get confusing. 

Just look at D-13 that was requested, approved, and now has been abandoned. 

So DIRECTV 97W or D97W is as good a name as any for now. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## P Smith

So be it - "D97" .


----------



## LameLefty

Tom Robertson said:


> With so many slots already active, it no longer makes sense to give them names until they are approved and construction is contracted. Anything else would get confusing.


Aah, the voice of reason amidst the babble. Thank you, Tom!


----------



## HoTat2

Davenlr said:


> 2 degree spacing works on C band where the -3 db point on a standard 10' dish is much wider than a KU dish, and KA is even narrower (note the fine tuning adjusters needed for KA band?)
> 
> Turn your dish one degree, and see if you have any signal at all. Im sure the interference they are referring to, is interference from the ground station to neighbor satellites, not interference from the satellite to the ground stations.
> 
> With sufficiently large dishes at the uplink site, I have no worries they can avoid interference with a satellite 2 degrees away.


Alright, this sounds good for the most part;

But if the potential interference Tom spoke of refers to that of the uplink stations on adjacent satellites, then how can the use of "spot-beams" on the receiving satellite aid in preventing such interference to a neighboring satellite slot from its ground station?


----------



## veryoldschool

HoTat2 said:


> Alright, this sounds good for the most part;
> 
> But if the potential interference Tom spoke of refers to that of the uplink stations on adjacent satellites, then how can the use of "spot-beams" on the receiving satellite aid in preventing such interference to a neighboring satellite slot from its ground station?


It has to be done from the ground.
You wouldn't use a "CONUS" beam pattern on a ground station as you'd "hit" every SAT up there. :lol:
Going back to the adjustable flashlight beam, you "merely" focus the beam narrow enough so as to not illuminate the SAT 2º [something like 800 miles] away.


----------



## Tom Robertson

HoTat2 said:


> Alright, this sounds good for the most part;
> 
> But if the potential interference Tom spoke of refers to that of the uplink stations on adjacent satellites, then how can the use of "spot-beams" on the receiving satellite aid in preventing such interference to a neighboring satellite slot from its ground station?


Sorry, didn't mean to confuse. The interference is not in the uplink direction. The monster dishes on the ground can focus a very tight beam that several uplink stations can hit separate dishes on a single satellite. As VOS describes, think of looking down at the earth and seeing 4 flashlights in the 4 corners of the US. Even if they are the same frequency, they are so far apart, it isn't a problem.

The interference is trying to receive the signals on the ground on a small dish from two satellites that are only 2° apart. It can be done--but we're talking about mass manufactured and mass installed dishes. So everthing needs to be slighly more precise for it to work everywhere. Hence the very fine tuning instructions and the problems of slightly warped dishes.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## James Long

Tom Robertson said:


> Sorry, didn't mean to confuse. The interference is not in the uplink direction. The monster dishes on the ground can focus a very tight beam that several uplink stations can hit separate dishes on a single satellite. As VOS describes, think of looking down at the earth and seeing 4 flashlights in the 4 corners of the US. Even if they are the same frequency, they are so far apart, it isn't a problem.


I read VOS's description (which specifically refers to a satellite 2º / 800 miles away) as the same uplink lighting up satellites at two different slots. If all works well a viewer at the satellite would only see ONE "flashlight" beam from one dish at the uplink. If they moved 800 miles to the next slot they would see a different beam from a different dish at the same uplink center.

What you are referring to is also possible ... designing a satellite with an uplink receive dish that would only see one area, such as Southern California, and another dish that would only see another area, such as Colorado. In that case a viewer at the satellite would see both "flashlight" beams (unless they were looking at the earth through the receive equipment - which would only see the appropriate beam).



> The interference is trying to receive the signals on the ground on a small dish from two satellites that are only 2° apart. It can be done--but we're talking about mass manufactured and mass installed dishes. So everthing needs to be slighly more precise for it to work everywhere. Hence the very fine tuning instructions and the problems of slightly warped dishes.


There are also regional variances that need to be taken into account. Two degrees apart in space is not two degrees apart in an arc on the ground from every receive location. I believe it is possible to design a reflector that is 2º compliant in the Ka band.


----------



## LameLefty

I'm sure the highly-educated and well-trained RF engineers at Directv and their counterparts at Boeing and SS/L who design the satellites will appreciate our collective approval of their abilities.


----------



## Alan Gordon

HoTat2 said:


> I would say so as well, were it not for Tom's earlier statement about the Ka-band payloads at 101 actually being spot-beamed to eliminate potential interference with 99 and 103.


I would imagine that DirecTV is a forward enough thinking company to have done some testing at 101°...

~Alan


----------



## Sixto

While there's only been one public Space Systems / Loral (SS/L) press release, the FCC docs clearly refers to two birds, with both being updated within the past few weeks.

RB-1 (at 99°): Modification: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=907941

Schedule-S: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=908556​RB-2 (at 103°): Modification: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=907995

Schedule-S: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=908568​


----------



## HoTat2

Still no filings on the Ka-band payload clearly mentioned in the SS/L press release for DIRECTV 14/RB-1?

Very strange ...


----------



## Sixto

HoTat2 said:


> Still no filings on the Ka-band payload clearly mentioned in the SS/L press release for DIRECTV 14/RB-1?
> 
> Very strange ...


I've always assumed that the press release was referring to either RB-1 or RB-2, and for whatever reason they decided to only mention one. It seems clear in the filings that SS/L is building two satellites.


----------



## HoTat2

Sixto said:


> I've always assumed that the press release was referring to either RB-1 or RB-2, and for whatever reason they decided to only mention one. It seems clear in the filings that SS/L is building two satellites.


Yea;

But I'm just still trying to ascertain as to whether or not RB-1 designated for 99W (don't know about RB-2) will contain a Ka-band payload as well or not. Had thought the mention of Ka in the original press release implied another D12 type set of Ka-hi transponders for 99W.

A possible "99ca" perhaps?


----------



## David Ortiz

Ran across some interesting items regarding reflecting the Ku signal from 101 back toward the base of the dish and passing the Ka signal from 101 through to the dish arm.

http://www.patentgenius.com/image/7982687-5.html

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7982687.html


----------



## Tom Robertson

David Ortiz said:


> Ran across some interesting items regarding reflecting the Ku signal from 101 back toward the base of the dish and passing the Ka signal from 101 through to the dish arm.
> 
> http://www.patentgenius.com/image/7982687-5.html
> 
> http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7982687.html


That is very cool! A selectively reflective/passive surface that allows both Ka and Ku at 101°! One frequency range would be folded back toward the base of the LNB arm and the other passed thru to the current LNB head.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## David Ortiz

Tom Robertson said:


> That is very cool! A selectively reflective/passive surface that allows both Ka and Ku at 101°! One frequency range would be folded back toward the base of the LNB arm and the other passed thru to the current LNB head.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


The patent also outlines the new feedhorns for 99° and 103° as to be designed to receive 17.3-20.2GHz, which would include Ka high, Ka low, and the reverse band frequencies.


----------



## Sixto

Very nice find!

Thank you Mr. Ortiz.


----------



## LameLefty

David Ortiz said:


> The patent also outlines the new feedhorns for 99° and 103° as to be designed to receive 17.3-20.2GHz, which would include Ka high, Ka low, and the reverse band frequencies.


Awesome.


----------



## inkahauts

I wonder how long before those dishes show up?

That's really cool...


----------



## spear61

spear61 said:


> There were a bunch of KA band filings for 97W from three companies on the day the server crashed - Directv, Hughes, and Inmarsat Hawaii.
> 
> ]


International Bureau has dismissed Hughes and Inmarsat filings without comment, leaving Directv as the sole applicant for 97W KA spectrum.


----------



## Sixto

spear61 said:


> International Bureau has dismissed Hughes and Inmarsat filings without comment, leaving Directv as the sole applicant for 97W KA spectrum.


Yep, today's release: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1498A1.pdf

The Letter of Intent filed on August 9, 2011 by Hughes Network Systems LLC is dismissed as premature.

The Letter of Intent filed on August 9, 2011 by Inmarsat Hawaii Inc. is dismissed as premature​What I'm not yet sure of, is if this is the same as the request for 97 or use of 97. Checking ...


----------



## P Smith

Sixto, here are some numbers for thoughts.

In current allocation of bandwidth of Ka-Hi at 103W orbital spot (sharing between SW-1 and D12), we're does not see two tpns: 7 and 8.
SW1 use tp1..6 for spot-beams, D12 - tp9...24 for CONUS.

And another tidbit: Ka-Hi at 99W tp7/8 and tp9...24 are not covered by any sat. 
I see a window of opportunity to utilize the Ka-Hi empty range by future sat (perhaps [email protected] could do that ?).


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> Sixto, here are some numbers for thoughts.
> 
> In current allocation of bandwidth of Ka-Hi at 103W orbital spot (sharing between SW-1 and D12), we're does not see two tpns: 7 and 8.
> SW1 use tp1..6 for spot-beams, D12 - tp9...24 for CONUS.
> 
> *And another tidbit: Ka-Hi at 99W tp7/8 and tp9...24 are not covered by any sat.
> I see a window of opportunity to utilize the Ka-Hi empty range by future sat (perhaps [email protected] could do that ?).*


Yes a possible "99ca?"

That's what I suggested early on in this thread here;

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2695104#post2695104

And lately here;

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2836566#post2836566

But the problem is no FCC filings for a Ka-hi band station at 99W has been found. The only located filings pertaining to the future satellite for 99W under construction by SS/L only mentions the 24/17 GHz Reverse-DBS license RB-1.


----------



## P Smith

I'm reading FCC docs by posted links here ... Don't see either Ka-Hi freqs at 99W in those.

Still wondering about no load on existing tp7 and 8. Used for special purpose ?


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> I'm reading FCC docs by posted links here ... Don't see either Ka-Hi freqs at 99W in those.
> 
> Still wondering about no load on existing tp7 and 8. Used for special purpose ?


For that matter I'm not really sure how the Spaceways have room for their transponders 1-6 much less 7 and 8, at least on SW1 currently.

For instance according to the technical schedule S document for D12's Ka-hi CONUS beam tps., they need a total bandwidth of 8 x 40 MHz = 320 MHz with the lowest tp. center frequency of 19890 MHz.

Therefore extending 20 MHz below that for a lower edge of 19870 MHz, that only leaves 170 MHz of bandwidth for SW1's six transponders. Now if the Spaceways allegedly have a tp. bandwidth of 62.5 MHz each, where is there room for them? 

Could the receiver signal strength screens actually be showing virtual transponders 1-6 for the Spaceways (or maybe just for SW1 at the moment) but in reality they are using a half-transponder arrangement by transmitting two RF carriers on each of the first three 62.5 MHz physical transponders?


----------



## doctor j

HoTat2 said:


> For that matter I'm not really sure how the Spaceways have room for their transponders 1-6 much less 7 and 8, at least on SW1 currently.
> 
> For instance according to the technical schedule S document for D12's Ka-hi CONUS beam tps., they need a total bandwidth of 8 x 40 MHz = 320 MHz with the lowest tp. center frequency of 19890 MHz.
> 
> Therefore extending 20 MHz below that for a lower edge of 19870 MHz, that only leaves 170 MHz of bandwidth for SW1's six transponders. Now if the Spaceways allegedly have a tp. bandwidth of 62.5 MHz each, where is there room for them?
> 
> Could the receiver signal strength screens actually be showing virtual transponders 1-6 for the Spaceways (or maybe just for SW1 at the moment) but in reality they are using a half-transponder arrangement by transmitting two RF carriers on each of the first three 62.5 MHz physical transponders?


Remember it's R and L polarization so they are using 3 Transponder pairs.

That still gets ovelap as you noted: 187.5 MHz goes to 1975.5 MHz.
Either the 5/6 pair is a Half Transponder or the D12 lower Transponder is "Not available".
The spaceways are going to be a big part of the 12 additional HD LIL markets reportly active in 2011.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=172899

Sixto's D-12 map shows TPN 9 and 10 the lower R/L pair as open.

I've postulated the non use of 9/10 D-12 was because of SW-1.
this just means the "available bandwidth" for National HD channels continues to be very Tight.

Doctor j


----------



## doctor j

spear61 said:


> International Bureau has dismissed Hughes and Inmarsat filings without comment, leaving Directv as the sole applicant for 97W KA spectrum.


Unfortunately I don't think that's what it means at all.
From the queue report you referenced:

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/qReportExternal.do

The filing period began at 2:00:00:000 PM on 8/9/2011, for the vacanted KA 97W slot.
Within 40 seconds HughesNetwork Systems LLC (4) ; INMARSAT Hawaii Inc. (4) ; and DIRECTV Enterprises LLC (3) had filed 11 requests for the 97W slot on a "First Come, First Served" basis.

The Hughes s2832 and INMARSAT s2833 were microseconds before the exact 2:00:00:000 acceptable time and therefore dismissed as premature.

HOWEVER the Hughes s2834 and s2837 as well as the INMARSAT s2836 filings are BEFORE the DIRECTV s2838 filing at 2:00:02:796 
and are still valid.

I don't think this is going away that easy

"Missed it by THAT much" (2:796 seconds)

Doctor j


----------



## P Smith

doctor j said:


> Remember it's R and L polarization so they are using 3 Transponder pairs.
> 
> That still gets ovelap as you noted: 187.5 MHz goes to 1975.5 MHz.
> Either the 5/6 pair is a Half Transponder or the D12 lower Transponder is "Not available".
> The spaceways are going to be a big part of the 12 additional HD LIL markets reportly active in 2011.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=172899
> 
> Sixto's D-12 map shows TPN 9 and 10 the lower R/L pair as open.
> 
> I've postulated the non use of 9/10 D-12 was because of SW-1.
> this just means the "available bandwidth" for National HD channels continues to be very Tight.
> 
> Doctor j


Aha ! Interference between sat's tpns ...

As to D12 tp9/10 - those are alive and kicking .


----------



## spear61

doctor j said:


> Unfortunately I don't think that's what it means at all.
> 
> I don't think this is going away that easy
> 
> "Missed it by THAT much" (2:796 seconds)
> 
> Doctor j


I did the Abbott and Costello thing (who's on first?) and started thru the multiple filing times and then gave up knowing you would figure it out.

I did wonder about filing geographical location and server response time and how something as benign as miliseconds of server response could affect the filings.

Sure seems like an archaic way to make such a big decision. I read they used to pay people to sleep in the FCC corridors so as to get in the door for the first paper stamp.


----------



## LameLefty

spear61 said:


> I did the Abbott and Costello thing (who's on first?) and started thru the multiple filing times and then gave up knowing you would figure it out.
> 
> I did wonder about filing geographical location and server response time and how something as benign as miliseconds of server response could affect the filings.
> 
> Sure seems like an archaic way to make such a big decision. I read they used to pay people to sleep in the FCC corridors so as to get in the door for the first paper stamp.


I've literally had a runner at a court clerk waiting for a phone call or a page (back in the day) so they could file a document ASAP. We were already pushing the edges with the tech of the '90s, but now with so many courts and bureaucratic agencies going to electronic filing systems, I suspect eventually some kind of "common sense" rewriting of the rules will prevail. For instance, "first to file" priority meant a lot more when Company A files one day, and Company B doesn't bother to file for another few days or weeks - that evidences that Company B was either unable or unwilling to spend the effort to file earlier, and hence de facto less worthy of consideration. A more common sense approach would be to say that applications filed by close of business on the first day would have priority, and then either go by lottery or some kind of technical weighting system from among those applicants.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> Aha ! Interference between sat's tpns ...
> 
> As to D12 tp9/10 - those are alive and kicking .


Unless you mean health wise or some other, how exactly can you say transponder pair 9/10 are "alive and kicking" if indeed doctor j is correct and they are unusable for relaying national programming since they may interfere with SW1?


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> Unless you mean health wise or some other, how exactly can you say transponder pair 9/10 are "alive and kicking" if indeed doctor j is correct and they are unusable for relaying national programming since they may interfere with SW1?



 D12 Schedule S listed tp09/10, freq 19.890 GHz.
 Spectrum analyzer show the D12 9/10 tpns clear and loud here (SFO).
 The tpns does listed in System Tables:
Net#15 - 102.8W
09: R 30000 S2-QPSK:2/3 IF:1840000 KHz (19890 GHz) [~40 Mbps]
10: L 30000 S2-QPSK:2/3 IF:1840000 KHz (19890 GHz) [~40 Mbps]
 Turn your DVR signal level screen for 103(ca) and tell me the values for tp9/10. That means at least null packets streaming, not just carrier presenting.
 Perhaps one day I could show you constellation diagram, not sure if it will convince you.
 Interference happening between D12 tp7/8 [19.850 GHz] and SW-1 [19.866 GHz].

P.S. Reading Schedule S, I see D12 has frequencies for support SB (tp 15..24) at 103W [net#14], same time D10 has same set of tpns. Since there is no separate network, those two sats can works for different SB without showing it names/ID in system tables. Perhaps D12 as new sat could do 8PSK modulation, then we can find his SB tpns. Today 16 tpns in Net#14 employ 8PSK.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> ... Interference happening between D12 tp7/8 [19.850 GHz] and SW-1 [19.866 GHz]. ....


D12 transponder pair "7/8?" 

Aren't pair 9/10 the lowest on A-band?


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> D12 transponder pair "7/8?"
> 
> Aren't pair 9/10 the lowest on A-band?


OK. Let me correct myself. (Isn't close to that what happened with NAND ?).

It would be happen if D12 would fire up tp7/8.

The phrase outline to that fact what discussed above - D12 tp 9/10 are "disabled" because of SW1's tp 5/6 close range - those are not.

[Picking words and not taking time for reading last pages of the thread?]

*P.S. You didn't post your DVR signal level reading for D12 tp9/10 !*


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> OK. Let me correct myself. (Isn't close to that what happened with NAND ?).
> 
> It would be happen if D12 would fire up tp7/8.
> 
> The phrase outline to that fact what discussed above - D12 tp 9/10 are "disabled" because of SW1's tp 5/6 close range - those are not.
> 
> [Picking words and not taking time for reading last pages of the thread?]
> 
> *P.S. You didn't post your DVR signal level reading for D12 tp9/10 !*


OK, I think I understand what you're saying. Hypothetically speaking, if there were an actual transponder pair of 7/8 centered at 19850 MHz calculated by going 40 MHz below pair 9/10 at 19890 MHz, it would conflict with SW1's transponder pair 5/6 center at 19866 MHz. Not pair 9/10.

But what of the some 7 MHz overlap between the lower transponder bandwidth edge of D12's 9/10 pair and upper edge of SW1's 5/6 pair? Is it maybe inconsequential because the extreme upper and lower parts of SW1's 62.5 MHz tp. bandwidth are unused?

Oh ..., and my readings on tps. 9 and 10 on 103ca are around 75-77 right now. Temperature outside is close to 100 degrees in South L.A.
at the moment.
But I really don't have great Ka band numbers, never did in spite of all manner of attempts at peaking the dish here (SL-5).


----------



## P Smith

That's why I spent time for making post #194, answering to your above it.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> That's why I spent time for making post #194, answering to your above it.


Alright;

Be nice to know what exactly DIRECTV is doing, or intending to do with tps. pair 9/10 though. They may be "alive and kicking" as you say, and certainly not with just unmodulated carriers either, but digitally modulated with standard 30 mega-baud data streams as though they were both transmitting HD programming. Yet Sixto's map still show them both as "open."

What are they sending null packets or something?


----------



## P Smith

See post#194 ...


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> See post#194 ...


So a good guess for D12's tps. 9 and 10 sending out a null packet stream with the same data, code rate, and modulation level as actual programming would be as a sort of "hot standby" possibly for ready reserve capacity available for quick emergency switchover?


----------



## P Smith

Well, it's 'a place' opened for suggestions.


----------



## Sixto

I've thought that they're using the D12 TP9/TP10 frequency range in some way but have been unable to prove. Have been basing this on 1) P. Smith showing activity for a while now, and 2) multiple references to bandwidth being tight and recently they've been taking down Cinema HD for each new HD channel instead of using bandwidth that would appear available.

If it was unused or reserve backup capacity then they could have used the bandwidth for new HD channels and just take down those Cinema HD if an issue arose.

There was also the possibility that they're awaiting some newer ground infrastructure, but again P. Smith shows activity.

As with the D12 "push" HD slots, been thinking that the mystery will eventually be figured out.


----------



## P Smith

Remember - I specifically mentioned geographic location of the observations: SFO.
As to PUSH - check your PM.


----------



## Sixto

Interesting ... for Latin America ...

Intelsat Buying Two Satellites for Lease to DirecTV:http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/110908-intelsat-buying-sats-lease-directv.html​


----------



## spear61

Sixto said:


> Interesting ... for Latin America ...
> 
> Intelsat Buying Two Satellites for Lease to DirecTV:http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/110908-intelsat-buying-sats-lease-directv.html​


And negotiating for 4 launches with Arianespace.


----------



## spear61

FCC updated the rules for 17/24 Ghz BSS in June and existing licenses will be required to file MOD's (modification) to supplement technical info

Wow, it really gets complicated when they cluster the DBS and BSS satellites together.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0614/FCC-11-93A1.pdf

Appendix D has a nice reference table of the ITU 17/24 BSS slots, the USA BSS slots and the USA DBS slots.


----------



## Sixto

2014.

Arianespace to launch up to four satellites for DIRECTV:http://www.arianespace.com/news-press-release/2011/9-13-2011-directv.asp​


> Arianespace to launch up to four satellites for DIRECTV
> 
> Evry, France, September 13, 2011
> 
> Arianespace announced today that it will launch two satellites for DIRECTV and has the option of launching another two satellites for one of the world's leading providers of television entertainment services.
> 
> All four satellites will weigh in at over 6 metric tons and will be a part of a fleet expansion and replenishment program. The new satellites will strengthen DIRECTV's direct-to-home (DTH) digital entertainment services across the United States and, if the options are exercised, Latin America by increasing high-definition channel capacity, adding more 3D channels, and greatly expanding the DIRECTV Cinema movies experience.
> 
> The satellites will be launched on Ariane 5 from Europe's Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana in 2014. DIRECTV-14 is currently being built by Space Systems LORAL of California. The DIRECTV-15 satellite is in the final stages of contract award.
> 
> "DIRECTV is pleased to be back with Arianespace and its high performance and highly reliable ARIANE-5 launch vehicle services," said Romulo Pontual, Chief Technology Officer of DIRECTV. "We have the utmost confidence in this system's design and in the depth of the organization behind this rocket. We have a long standing relationship with ARIANESPACE and we are happy to build upon that foundation of success."
> 
> "It is a matter of great pride that DIRECTV has entrusted us with as many as four of their satellites," said Jean-Yves Le Gall, Chief Executive Officer of Arianespace. "An order of this magnitude confirms Arianespace's reputation as offering the most reliable launch service and solutions in the marketplace. We are excited to build upon a relationship that goes back nearly two decades, to the dawn of the direct-to-home revolution, when Arianespace launched DBS-1 for DIRECTV."


DirecTV Taps Arianespace for At Least Two Launches:http://www.spacenews.com/launch/110913-directv-taps-arianespace-launches.html​
Arianespace to launch satellites for DirecTV:http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2011/09/13/arianespace-to-launch-satellites-for-directv/​


----------



## RAD

DIRECTV 15, first time I've seen that mentioned. Wonder if White will bring it up on Thursdays conference call?


----------



## LameLefty

RAD said:


> DIRECTV 15, first time I've seen that mentioned. Wonder if White will bring it up on Thursdays conference call?


Indeed. And will it be part of the "expansion" or "replenishment" of the constellation? I've pointed out several times that some of the Ku satellites are getting to the point where replacement has to at least be on Directv's long-term technology roadmap.

In any event, I've been expecting to see a contract award soon and thought it would likely go to Arianespace. Proton has had several failures in recent years (including its last launch just last month), SeaLaunch has gone through bankruptcy and reorganization but hasn't made a successful launch since (one is scheduled in the next 2 weeks however), ILS is too expensive, and SpaceX has yet to launch any satellite beyond low-earth orbit and their proposed vehicle has only two launches in its entire flight history.


----------



## HoTat2

From the first link by Sixto;



> ... The contract includes options to launch two more satellites for DirecTV for its DirecTV Latin America subsidiary. That company has just booked almost all the capacity on two large satellites to be built for satellite fleet operator Intelsat of Washington and Luxembourg.
> 
> Intelsat has said it will determine which rocket will launch these two spacecraft, named Intelsat 30 and Intelsat 31, both to be used mainly by DirecTV Latin America for the satellites' full 15-year lives. Nonetheless, industry officials have said the two spacecraft might end up being the two that cover the DirecTV launch options with Evry, France-based Arianespace.


Sort of confusing here, DIRECTV is only to lease capacity on the future Intelsat 30 and 31 primarily for DIRECTV LA service. So how do they award contract options to Arianespace for launching them instead of the actual owners Intelsat as the second paragraph shows?


----------



## LameLefty

HoTat2 said:


> Sort of confusing here, DIRECTV is only to lease capacity on the future Intelsat 30 and 31 primarily for DIRECTV LA service. So how do they award contract options to Arianespace for launching them instead of the actual owners Intelsat as the second paragraph shows?


It is confusing, isn't it? It's possible that Intelsat gives their primary planned lessee (in this case, Directv), some say in who launches their payload. Perhaps in this case, Directv has negotiated certain launch terms and pricing from Arianespace on the basis of those 2 launches + 2 options, and is assigning those terms to Intelsat (cheaper launch price than maybe Intelsat could get themselves) in exchange for discounted lease rates for the satellite capacity that Directv needs.


----------



## Nighthawk68

If Directv is going to use D15 for a replacement at say 101, would it make sense to make all channels mpeg4? sure it would be nice to have all replaced with HD, but we all know that isn't going to happen. However, mpeg4 would make the SD channels look better.

Just a thought.


----------



## RAD

"Nitehawk^" said:


> If Directv is going to use D15 for a replacement at say 101, would it make sense to make all channels mpeg4? sure it would be nice to have all replaced with HD, but we all know that isn't going to happen. However, mpeg4 would make the SD channels look better.
> 
> Just a thought.


Satellite has nothing to do with a channel being in MPEG2 or MPEG4, to them it's just ones and zeros.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

So now we have to wait until 2014 for D14 to launch??



> The satellites will be launched on Ariane 5 from Europe's Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana in 2014.


----------



## Tom Robertson

TheRatPatrol said:


> So now we have to wait until 2014 for D14 to launch??


That seems to be the case.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Tom Robertson said:


> That seems to be the case.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Great. I guess we'll have to wait a little bit longer for more HD now.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Nitehawk^ said:


> If Directv is going to use D15 for a replacement at say 101, would it make sense to make all channels mpeg4? sure it would be nice to have all replaced with HD, but we all know that isn't going to happen. However, mpeg4 would make the SD channels look better.
> 
> Just a thought.


To expand upon Rad's answer, there still would need to be several billion dollars spent on replacing dishes and receivers before everything could go MPEG4. Ain't gonna happen for a long time.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Sixto

RAD said:


> DIRECTV 15, first time I've seen that mentioned. Wonder if White will bring it up on Thursdays conference call?


There's been alot of mystery (at least for me!) about DirecTV-15, which I've always expected is RB-2.

RB-2 has been assigned by the FCC, we've talked about it, but I've never found any reference to the build of it anywhere. Finally today we have some more info.


----------



## Sixto

TheRatPatrol said:


> Great. I guess we'll have to wait a little bit longer for more HD now.


Never say never.


----------



## Tom Robertson

TheRatPatrol said:


> Great. I guess we'll have to wait a little bit longer for more HD now.


Listen to the wisdom of Sixto...


----------



## wmb

Tom Robertson said:


> To expand upon Rad's answer, there still would need to be several billion dollars spent on replacing dishes and receivers before everything could go MPEG4. Ain't gonna happen for a long time.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


How long after bringing out the MPEG2 HD DirecTIVO did they wait before they obsoleted the entire line? Seems there are some still angry about that.

The current boxes are available that output composite AV and S-video, along with HD. Legacy SDTVs can be fed a signal from the current HD boxes.

While we talk about the equipment change out costs, that ignores the cost of maintaining the SD signals. Channel providers are starting to only provide HD signals (e.g ESPN). This means lower distribution costs for the provider. You would only need to uplink one signal and you wouldn't need to have the equipment to downconvert the signal and send it up for distribution.

My bet is DirecTV has a number of people running models and comparing operating costs and revenue projections for various scenarios. They are probably closely tracking HD vs SD dish installs (one HD receiver requires an HD dish), and ratio of HD to SD receivers. They can probably give pretty accurate predictions of when 50% and 75% of new install receivers will be HD. The also know the rate at which SD receivers are being replaced by HD ones. Since joining DirecTV 4 years ago, I retired 2 of 3 SD TVs and replaced them with HD TVs. The last SDTV is in a guest room and never watched (something else I am sure DirecTV can track). Surely, they can also give a decent date estimate of when the number of operating SD receivers will fall below a threadhold making separate broadcast no longer cost effective/profitable.

The question is whether, when they need to contract for, and begin construction of a replacement of the current SD satellites, will it make sense economically to continue to broadcast SD signals. Given that multiple satellites are involved in SD delivery, I could imagine a scenario where they slowly reduce services available SD only (e.g movie premiums and/or PPV require an HD receiver) during the transition period. This way, they could wean SD customers from their SD equipment without forcing people to switch all at once.


----------



## Bonneville44

Tom Robertson said:


> Listen to the wisdom of Sixto...


Should we be starting some new anticipating in the other thread?!


----------



## JoeTheDragon

wmb said:


> How long after bringing out the MPEG2 HD DirecTIVO did they wait before they obsoleted the entire line? Seems there are some still angry about that.
> 
> The current boxes are available that output composite AV and S-video, along with HD. Legacy SDTVs can be fed a signal from the current HD boxes.
> 
> While we talk about the equipment change out costs, that ignores the cost of maintaining the SD signals. Channel providers are starting to only provide HD signals (e.g ESPN). This means lower distribution costs for the provider. You would only need to uplink one signal and you wouldn't need to have the equipment to downconvert the signal and send it up for distribution.
> 
> My bet is DirecTV has a number of people running models and comparing operating costs and revenue projections for various scenarios. They are probably closely tracking HD vs SD dish installs (one HD receiver requires an HD dish), and ratio of HD to SD receivers. They can probably give pretty accurate predictions of when 50% and 75% of new install receivers will be HD. The also know the rate at which SD receivers are being replaced by HD ones. Since joining DirecTV 4 years ago, I retired 2 of 3 SD TVs and replaced them with HD TVs. The last SDTV is in a guest room and never watched (something else I am sure DirecTV can track). Surely, they can also give a decent date estimate of when the number of operating SD receivers will fall below a threadhold making separate broadcast no longer cost effective/profitable.
> 
> The question is whether, when they need to contract for, and begin construction of a replacement of the current SD satellites, will it make sense economically to continue to broadcast SD signals. Given that multiple satellites are involved in SD delivery, I could imagine a scenario where they slowly reduce services available SD only (e.g movie premiums and/or PPV require an HD receiver) during the transition period. This way, they could wean SD customers from their SD equipment without forcing people to switch all at once.


well they can start by offering bars a deal when if you take a hd box we will help you pay some of cost of updating your switching system to HD.


----------



## Tom Robertson

wmb said:


> ...
> My bet is DirecTV has a number of people running models and comparing operating costs and revenue projections for various scenarios. They are probably closely tracking HD vs SD dish installs (one HD receiver requires an HD dish), and ratio of HD to SD receivers. They can probably give pretty accurate predictions of when 50% and 75% of new install receivers will be HD. The also know the rate at which SD receivers are being replaced by HD ones. Since joining DirecTV 4 years ago, I retired 2 of 3 SD TVs and replaced them with HD TVs. The last SDTV is in a guest room and never watched (something else I am sure DirecTV can track). Surely, they can also give a decent date estimate of when the number of operating SD receivers will fall below a threadhold making separate broadcast no longer cost effective/profitable.
> 
> The question is whether, when they need to contract for, and begin construction of a replacement of the current SD satellites, will it make sense economically to continue to broadcast SD signals. Given that multiple satellites are involved in SD delivery, I could imagine a scenario where they slowly reduce services available SD only (e.g movie premiums and/or PPV require an HD receiver) during the transition period. This way, they could wean SD customers from their SD equipment without forcing people to switch all at once.


The entire post is one of few that delves into the whole of the big picture. There are lots of costs to balance out and I am sure DIRECTV has the numbers modeled very thoroughly.

To me the first enabler will be when it is no more expensive to produce MPEG4 boxes than MPEG2 only boxes. Then DIRECTV will cut off the new shipments of MPEG2 boxes into the supply chain.

The next sign might be no more 18" dish installs. Or removing the D series from installs and replacements.

It will be a very long-term evolution. So long-term, you really can't even call it a project yet.

Until the number of active MPEG2 receivers falls below 5M, it will still be less expensive to launch another satellite. (Generally speaking that is.)

And yes, absolutely, I expect DIRECTV will use the same techniques to encourage people to swap off SD receivers in groups as they did before. Slowly turning off SD services and offering economical upgrades to those last holdouts. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

JoeTheDragon said:


> well they can start by offering bars a deal when if you take a hd box we will help you pay some of cost of updating your switching system to HD.


You hit another key point: bars, hotels, offices and businesses that use DIRECTV for their music, private networks for companies, etc.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Coca Cola Kid

Why is there no D13? Are they that superstitious?


----------



## Tom Robertson

Coca Cola Kid said:


> Why is there no D13? Are they that superstitious?


D13 was licensed for satellite orbital slot 110° but DIRECTV surrendered that license, reverting to their existing license at that slot. So I presume they will not re-use that designation to avoid confusion.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Sixto said:


> Never say never.


Oh I know I know. 


Tom Robertson said:


> Listen to the wisdom of Sixto...


And you too Tom.


----------



## georule

Do they use the same STBs in Latin America as they do in the US?

I use to think as their growth curve flattened yet new model HD STBs rolled out, that'd help on the conversion end (rolling older HD STBs to replace SD STBs). But if LA is using the same equipment, and still growing rapidly. . . not so much.


----------



## harsh

Tom Robertson said:


> To expand upon Rad's answer, there still would need to be several billion dollars spent on replacing dishes and receivers before everything could go MPEG4.


If they played it right, they could use the existing dishes. Move the non-lifeline CONUS and more small DMA LIL to Ka and start collapsing the Ku stuff to MPEG4 in the vacated space.

Those who wanted certain season packages (like NFLST or MLB EI) could be a nice small group to start with. Throw in a complete household update with each subscription.

Of course none of this can happen until they get all the DIRECTiVo customers fixed up with new Ka capable gear.


----------



## harsh

georule said:


> Do they use the same STBs in Latin America as they do in the US?


Mostly similar, but not identical. For one, the LA equipment doesn't seem to support RF remotes.


----------



## inkahauts

Nitehawk^ said:


> If Directv is going to use D15 for a replacement at say 101, would it make sense to make all channels mpeg4? sure it would be nice to have all replaced with HD, but we all know that isn't going to happen. However, mpeg4 would make the SD channels look better.
> 
> Just a thought.





wmb said:


> How long after bringing out the MPEG2 HD DirecTIVO did they wait before they obsoleted the entire line? Seems there are some still angry about that.
> 
> The current boxes are available that output composite AV and S-video, along with HD. Legacy SDTVs can be fed a signal from the current HD boxes.
> 
> While we talk about the equipment change out costs, that ignores the cost of maintaining the SD signals. Channel providers are starting to only provide HD signals (e.g ESPN). This means lower distribution costs for the provider. You would only need to uplink one signal and you wouldn't need to have the equipment to downconvert the signal and send it up for distribution.
> 
> My bet is DirecTV has a number of people running models and comparing operating costs and revenue projections for various scenarios. They are probably closely tracking HD vs SD dish installs (one HD receiver requires an HD dish), and ratio of HD to SD receivers. They can probably give pretty accurate predictions of when 50% and 75% of new install receivers will be HD. The also know the rate at which SD receivers are being replaced by HD ones. Since joining DirecTV 4 years ago, I retired 2 of 3 SD TVs and replaced them with HD TVs. The last SDTV is in a guest room and never watched (something else I am sure DirecTV can track). Surely, they can also give a decent date estimate of when the number of operating SD receivers will fall below a threadhold making separate broadcast no longer cost effective/profitable.
> 
> The question is whether, when they need to contract for, and begin construction of a replacement of the current SD satellites, will it make sense economically to continue to broadcast SD signals. Given that multiple satellites are involved in SD delivery, I could imagine a scenario where they slowly reduce services available SD only (e.g movie premiums and/or PPV require an HD receiver) during the transition period. This way, they could wean SD customers from their SD equipment without forcing people to switch all at once.


There where so few of the HD Tivos out there in comparison to mpeg2 only boxes, its not even a comparable situation.

They don't need to replace a single sat to switch to all hd and get rid of sd channels. The problem with killing the sd feeds is in peoples homes. Any sat they launch today as a replacement for one already up there is likely to have all the abilities for anything it replaces and more.

I also feel that replacing and adding sats has ZERO to do with hd and mpeg 4 in the big picture. Its all about capacity in general. The more capacity they have, the more channels and services they can have. We have already seen they have some On Demand content on a sat. I don't think they will stop adding sats until hey can offer all they have and more via sat if its monetarily possible to do it and not hinder their profits. I think the BSS sat packages will be all about that.



Tom Robertson said:


> The entire post is one of few that delves into the whole of the big picture. There are lots of costs to balance out and I am sure DIRECTV has the numbers modeled very thoroughly.
> 
> To me the first enabler will be when it is no more expensive to produce MPEG4 boxes than MPEG2 only boxes. Then DIRECTV will cut off the new shipments of MPEG2 boxes into the supply chain.
> 
> The next sign might be no more 18" dish installs. Or removing the D series from installs and replacements.
> 
> It will be a very long-term evolution. So long-term, you really can't even call it a project yet.
> 
> Until the number of active MPEG2 receivers falls below 5M, it will still be less expensive to launch another satellite. (Generally speaking that is.)
> 
> And yes, absolutely, I expect DIRECTV will use the same techniques to encourage people to swap off SD receivers in groups as they did before. Slowly turning off SD services and offering economical upgrades to those last holdouts.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I think that they already are killing off SD MPEG2, but only based on obvious opportunity right now. They are launching all their new Local DMAs and the ones they moved off 79 to MPEG-4 only DMAS. That's the start...

BUT I don't think they are even close to a proactive effort about killing off old equipment till they have bss equipment being deployed. We don't know what all will be required to receive BSS stuff yet, but they know what that is, and till its launched, there is no point in starting the process. And as you said it will be gradual.

When they went to a lease model, they decided that every box they produce will have a lifespan of X. And they wont stop using them till X years has passed by, so if the boxes that we have now can't in some way receive BSS...

Now if they can, via a new SWIM setup, then maybe, just maybe you could make the argument they have begun the process in general by starting to filer the newer hardware out there via natural attrition. I don't see a focused decision till they realize they can't launch any more sats (no more bandwidth available, and no need to replace any for a while) for x number of years and they might as well spend that type of development money on swapping out to newer hardware, and hey have the bss capable dishes ready to be installed.

I wouldn't be surprised if they followed the same path as they did with the HR10's. First Sports packages, then by dma, and then one final call to everyone that just waited and procrastinated. But again, till they have definitive BSS hardware, what would be the point in even worrying about costs of boxes on mpeg2 vs. mpeg 4 being the qualifier to move to all mpeg 4, unless there is an unexpected mass exodus to only mpeg4 hardware by the subs without any push by directv. That might move up their plans if a push to non bss but mpeg 4 hardware would be so low in comparison to costs of continuing to feed sd versions of channels that it made sense.

I am hoping that all the current mpeg 4 equipment will be able to receiver bss sat stuff with a new swim and dish. That would be nice.

I'd love to know all the details on how many of each kind of box is left out there, and by dma. How many people are still using non directv branded hardware somewhere in their house.


----------



## maartena

LameLefty said:


> Indeed. And will it be part of the "expansion" or "replenishment" of the constellation? I've pointed out several times that some of the Ku satellites are getting to the point where replacement has to at least be on Directv's long-term technology roadmap.


Since satellites generally last about 15 years or so, and the oldest seems to be nearing 12 years now, I would assume that with both 14 and 15 they will have capacity to off-load some of their older birds. I'm sure they know how old their satellites are.


----------



## cypherx

At what volume of manufacturing does MPEG4 receivers cost about the same as MPEG2 only?

I would imagine that in bulk, by now it shouldn't be that much cost prohibitive.


----------



## Tom Robertson

cypherx said:


> At what volume of manufacturing does MPEG4 receivers cost about the same as MPEG2 only?
> 
> I would imagine that in bulk, by now it shouldn't be that much cost prohibitive.


Since they are all ordered in bulk, I'm guessing the prices haven't equalized yet.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## alnielsen

inkahauts said:


> How many people are still using non directv branded hardware somewhere in their house.


I am. I have 2 receivers that are at least 10 yrs old and are still in use. However, I think that I'm in a minority. I would think most of the growth of Directv was after they went to the leasing model.


----------



## harsh

cypherx said:


> At what volume of manufacturing does MPEG4 receivers cost about the same as MPEG2 only?


I would imagine that the MPEG2 receiver cost rose some when they started putting SWiM capability in them. I wouldn't be surprised if they're using the same tuners that the HD equipment is. They still don't have networking but that's kind of a gimme in todays mainboard world. The only considerable deduction is probably DECA versus an H24. The H25 may be a wash against the D12 as it is.

Thinking back, many (myself included) figured the end of MPEG2 had begun with the release of the R22 40 months ago. Whoda thunk?


----------



## LameLefty

maartena said:


> Since satellites generally last about 15 years or so, and the oldest seems to be nearing 12 years now, I would assume that with both 14 and 15 they will have capacity to off-load some of their older birds. I'm sure they know how old their satellites are.


Actually I'm not sure of that at all. Directv 14 was mentioned in the most-recent investor presentations as being an expansion of the Ka fleet. That does nothing to help out with the older Ku birds. Page 48 of the December 2010 Investor Day presentation indicates that Directv 5 will hit design end-of-life by June 2014, although it has predicted fuel through at least 2020. D4S, D8 and Spaceway 1 all hit design end-of-life between December 2016 and October 2017, with SW2 following by mid-2018. Satellites take several years from contract-award to completion and launch, so expect to see more announcements like this within the next year to 18 months, I would think.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Satellite life = Fuel, battery, transponders. If all are good, the satellite can last much longer than the designed life. 

DIRECTV likely has a very close eye on the health of these guys and is ready to go with replacements. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## HarleyD

inkahauts said:


> I'd love to know all the details on how many of each kind of box is left out there, and by dma. How many people are still using non directv branded hardware somewhere in their house.


I still have two RCA DRD420's and a Hughes HIRDE11 (Silver Series) in use in the utility room, one guest bedroom and my office.


----------



## LameLefty

Tom Robertson said:


> Satellite life = Fuel, battery, transponders. If all are good, the satellite can last much longer than the designed life.
> 
> DIRECTV likely has a very close eye on the health of these guys and is ready to go with replacements.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


You left out one very important factor, Tom: Power. Solar cell efficiency drops over time, as does battery efficiency. Add in cumulative damage to spacecraft electronics from long-term exposure to solar and cosmic radiation and just simply entropy and once you get past the rated design life you're playing dice with increasingly bad odds, year by year.

Which is fundamentally what I'm getting at. We'll likely be seeing more about the satellite constellation in the coming year or two.


----------



## Tom Robertson

LameLefty said:


> You left out one very important factor, Tom: Power. Solar cell efficiency drops over time, as does battery efficiency. Add in cumulative damage to spacecraft electronics from long-term exposure to solar and cosmic radiation and just simply entropy and once you get past the rated design life you're playing dice with increasingly bad odds, year by year.
> 
> Which is fundamentally what I'm getting at. We'll likely be seeing more about the satellite constellation in the coming year or two.


I kinda was thinking of power, but very glad you clarified the specific issues therein. Thanks,

Tom


----------



## P Smith

Add to that forecast-ed soon Solar super-flame what should just kill all sats around Globe ...


----------



## Davenlr

P Smith said:


> Add to that forecast-ed soon Solar super-flame what should just kill all sats around Globe ...


Na, just those on the light side. Those on the dark side will be ok. Should make Vader happy


----------



## wmb

inkahauts said:


> They don't need to replace a single sat to switch to all hd and get rid of sd channels. The problem with killing the sd feeds is in peoples homes. Any sat they launch today as a replacement for one already up there is likely to have all the abilities for anything it replaces and more.


While true, it ignores one point... what the lay public will accept. As DirecTV shuts down SD service, they can tell customers that the satellite providing that service ended its 15 year service life and is no longer available to broadcast the signals required. Best of all, its the truth, although maybe not the whole truth.

This is why I think that they will continue to broadcast SD using the current satellites. I'm not convinced they will not replace the satellites with like SD. Thats were the costs/economic models will come into play. My gut says the replacements won't be used for SD. If they are, that is essentially a commitment to broadcasting SD for 15 more years. I doubt the economic models will support that.

As for bars... they are operating SD CRTs 12+ hours per day, 364 +days per year. My experience with CRTs is they have a max life of about 15 years @ 4 hours per day (that the longest I've had one last). Replacing a CRT with a panel should lower power consumption (electric bills). Also, for a sports bar NOT to have HD seems like it would have a negative impact on business. Long story short, my bet is that the SD attrition rate in bars is probably similar to or faster than that in homes.

Hotels may be a different issue... they have a built-in cable system. But HD signals can still be downconverted to work with the SD distribution system. I typically stay in Kimpton or Hilton hotels, and they are mostly SD on HD panels in the rooms.


----------



## evan_s

maartena said:


> Since satellites generally last about 15 years or so, and the oldest seems to be nearing 12 years now, I would assume that with both 14 and 15 they will have capacity to off-load some of their older birds. I'm sure they know how old their satellites are.


I doubt it, at least not directly. D14 is pretty clearly going to 99 which doesn't have any ku service at all. It has Ka high that could be better utilized like d12 and the RBSS. While the sat may not care what signal it is broadcasting (aka mpeg 2 vs mpeg 4) it sure does care about the frequency of those signals and you would need distinct separate components to be able to handle ka vs ku. Now RBSS might be close enough to Ku that the same components could be used for both but I don't think so. If you look at the filings they have everything spelled out very clearly on what frequencies everything is designed to handle.


----------



## evan_s

wmb said:


> While true, it ignores one point... what the lay public will accept. As DirecTV shuts down SD service, they can tell customers that the satellite providing that service ended its 15 year service life and is no longer available to broadcast the signals required. Best of all, its the truth, although maybe not the whole truth.
> 
> This is why I think that they will continue to broadcast SD using the current satellites. I'm not convinced they will not replace the satellites with like SD. Thats were the costs/economic models will come into play. My gut says the replacements won't be used for SD. If they are, that is essentially a commitment to broadcasting SD for 15 more years. I doubt the economic models will support that.


I don't think DirecTV is even thinking about it that way at all. First, they have 3 different sats up there at 101 providing the core Ku coverage. D4s, D8 and D9. All with different launch dates and therefore expected lifetimes. Not to mention the sats at 110 and 119. There is no way they would be replacing them all at the same time so there would never be a simple time to tell customers that that sat is gone so they can't provide sd service anymore.

Second, I don't think that is really a very good excuse anyway. I don't think the average customer cares about what sats directv has where and if they did try to use that as an excuse the customers would just end up saying, Well you knew it was going to need to be replaced so why didn't you take care of that.

What it really comes down to is a simple mater of costs. How many SD/mpeg2 receivers do they still have in service and across how many accounts. From there they can start figuring out how much it would cost them to replace all those receivers and do any necessary dish upgrades to go with them. From there they can easily start working out if it is worth trying to do the conversion and from what I hear on the boards here they don't really seem to be in all that much of a hurry which doesn't surprise me really. They've got quite a bit of bandwidth available for hd with more expansions planned so they aren't being forced to do it due to lack of bandwidth.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Besides, Dish and cable would expose the lie. The current satellites can handle MPEG4. They don't care what is in the bitstream.

SD will be an evolution not a revolution.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## YakeVlad

Tom Robertson said:


> SD will be an evolution not a revolution.


Agreed. The way I see it, SD service will be phased out over time in a similar but inverse manner to the way HD was expanded. Once the number of SD sets reaches a point where maintaining the SD feed is no longer financially justified, or the viewership of a channel reaches a similar point, I think you'll see the SD feeds begin to go the way of the dodo.


----------



## David Ortiz

It may be that some of the Ku spot beams will not be replaced and those SD locals will be phased out over time, possibly as soon as the new 97? (Ka), 99 (Ka + Reverse Band), 101 (Ku + Ka), 103 (Ka + Reverse Band) dish is ready.


----------



## Tom Robertson

David Ortiz said:


> It may be that some of the Ku spot beams will not be replaced and those SD locals will be phased out over time, possibly as soon as the new 97? (Ka), 99 (Ka + Reverse Band), 101 (Ku + Ka), 103 (Ka + Reverse Band) dish is ready.


One thing about bandwidth, is one rarely turns it back in. So I really don't think we'll see any Ku spotbeams turned off, they will likely transition to MPEG4, along with everything else--a long time from now. 

That said, the new "everything" dish, if there is one, could be out before then. DIRECTV has 3 more years to launch reverse band satellites and it will likely be 5 before we see any movement on 97°--if DIRECTV wins the bid.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## HarleyD

I'm surprised that the announced launch date in 2014 hasn't gotten a little more play in this discussion since that is nearly a year later than previously anticipated.

Even if it goes up early in 2014 with parking and IOT if history is any indicator it will be mid to late Q2 of 2014 before it starts to light up.

I personally find that disappointing. Not enough to rail about it or lose any sleep, just a bit disappointing after mentally counting down toward summer of 2013 since the initial announcement.


----------



## P Smith

Tom Robertson said:


> One thing about bandwidth, is one rarely turns it back in. So I really don't think we'll see any Ku spotbeams turned off, *they will likely transition to MPEG4*, along with everything else--a long time from now.
> 
> That said, the new "everything" dish, if there is one, could be out before then. DIRECTV has 3 more years to launch reverse band satellites and it will likely be 5 before we see any movement on 97°--if DIRECTV wins the bid.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Actually it happened last year or two - it's 119W tp24 and a few tpns at 95W for DTV GLA.


----------



## evan_s

Part of me wouldn't be too surprised to see them give back the three tps at 110. I don't think they've put anything new up there after taking down the HD channels that were there and they canceled the planned replacement sat. It also isn't a huge amount of bandwidth compared to what they have else where. Really, the best reason to keep using with what ever old sat they can keep limping along to provide those three tp's is simply to keep dish from getting them.


----------



## bobnielsen

evan_s said:


> Part of me wouldn't be too surprised to see them give back the three tps at 110. I don't think they've put anything new up there after taking down the HD channels that were there and they canceled the planned replacement sat. It also isn't a huge amount of bandwidth compared to what they have else where. Really, the best reason to keep using with what ever old sat they can keep limping along to provide those three tp's is simply to keep dish from getting them.


I've wondered if it would make sense to trade these 3 to Dish for some additional tps on 119. It might make the switching details easier when RBS (or ??) is added.


----------



## spear61

LameLefty said:


> You left out one very important factor, Tom: Power. Solar cell efficiency drops over time, as does battery efficiency. Add in cumulative damage to spacecraft electronics from long-term exposure to solar and cosmic radiation and just simply entropy and once you get past the rated design life you're playing dice with increasingly bad odds, year by year.
> 
> Which is fundamentally what I'm getting at. We'll likely be seeing more about the satellite constellation in the coming year or two.


Intelsat has a nice explanation on decay rate of solar panels. It's typical to see 
10-15 percent extra solar capacity on launch to cover the decay over 15 years but those solar storms can really upset the curve.

http://www.intelsat.com/resources/tech-talk/solar-weather.asp


----------



## LameLefty

Not major news, but the FCC has granted Directv's applications to modify its RB-1 and RB-2 BSS licenses to cover Puerto Rico, and to shift RB-1's location very slightly from 99.175°W to 99.235ºW. 
http://licensing.fcc.gov/ibfsweb/ib.page.FetchPN?report_key=923016


----------



## RAD

On the 3rd QTR conference call White said that DIRECTV 10 has had a failure of the primary propulsion system and is functioning on a backup system. Due to this they've accelerated the plan for DIRECTV 14 and a recently approved DIRECTV 15.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

"RAD" said:


> On the 3rd QTR conference call White said that DIRECTV 10 has had a failure of the primary propulsion system and is functioning on a backup system. Due to this they've accelerated the plan for DIRECTV 14 and a recently approved DIRECTV 15.


Any indication of how much sooner? I wonder if that's why we don't have more basics?


----------



## Stuart Sweet

wow, DIRECTV10 sure has had its share of problems.


----------



## RAD

Mike said he wanted to mention it on the call since it would be noted in the 10-Q that would be coming out in a few days. Maybe that will contain more information? I wonder if this was the (or one of) the reason that when D12 went up they moved D10 to another slot to work on a fix for a problem?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Stuart Sweet said:


> wow, DIRECTV10 sure has had its share of problems.


For sure.

It might also almost explain why the rush to add more HD channels has been curtailed a bit...


----------



## Groundhog45

Stuart Sweet said:


> wow, DIRECTV10 sure has had its share of problems.


Who built that satellite?


----------



## RAD

Groundhog45 said:


> Who built that satellite?


IIRC it was Boeing.


----------



## longrider

All the HD satellites are built on the Boeing 702HP bus - d10, d11, d12, spaceway 1 and spaceway 2


----------



## dpeters11

RAD said:


> Mike said he wanted to mention it on the call since it would be noted in the 10-Q that would be coming out in a few days. Maybe that will contain more information? I wonder if this was the (or one of) the reason that when D12 went up they moved D10 to another slot to work on a fix for a problem?


I thought about that as well, but that issue was with transponders on the spot beams wasn't it?


----------



## YakeVlad

dpeters11 said:


> I thought about that as well, but that issue was with transponders on the spot beams wasn't it?


Yeah, it had to do with some transponders that weren't functioning. Whatever the issue was with them they came up with a fix that solved the problem. A shame to hear there's a new issue and with a critical system like primary propulsion. I wonder how long they can continue to operate it on the backup system.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

They need to send an HSP up to look at that thing. I mean yeah, it would be a really tall ladder but still.


----------



## RAD

White did say they have a backup plan in case D10 did fail, any guesses what it could be?


----------



## RobertE

RAD said:


> White did say they have a backup plan in case D10 did fail, any guesses what it could be?


Either lease space on a ka band bird floating around somewhere that could be moved to D10 spot. Or, fill D11, D12, SW1 & SW2 to capacity for the short term. My guess would be on the later.


----------



## LameLefty

RobertE said:


> Either lease space on a ka band bird floating around somewhere that could be moved to D10 spot.


I'm not sure there is one handy with the right transponder arrangement and frequencies, and even if so, the FCC would have to give permission.



> Or, fill D11, D12, SW1 & SW2 to capacity for the short term. My guess would be on the later.


That would be my guess as well.


----------



## Sixto

Possibly use the "push" slots and also change the plans for growth to instead backfill D10. Would be a real shame, but you gotta do what you gotta do.


----------



## LameLefty

longrider said:


> All the HD satellites are built on the Boeing 702HP bus - d10, d11, d12, spaceway 1 and spaceway 2


But D14 is being built on an SS/L (Space Systems/Loral) satellite bus. Always a good idea to spread your risk and help keep competition alive in the satellite industry.


----------



## Sixto

With the D10 previous issues, and there's also always been rumored Spaceway issues, may have affected the SS/L award.


----------



## dpeters11

"LameLefty" said:


> But D14 is being built on an SS/L (Space Systems/Loral) satellite bus. Always a good idea to spread your risk and help keep competition alive in the satellite industry.


Or did they just one in with the cheapest bid?

Do these things come with solar array tip to solar array tip warranties?


----------



## LameLefty

dpeters11 said:


> Or did they just one in with the cheapest bid?


When you're talking about something that's around 150 - 300 million in end-to-end costs (satellite, launch, insurance, engineering support, etc), there's not THAT much difference in price. Bids are won and lost based on things beside pure price.



> Do these things come with solar array tip to solar array tip warranties?


That depends on the details of the purchase contract; I would expect that the last progress payments on the contract are probably paid upon completion of all on-orbit checkout and testing.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Sixto said:


> Possibly use the "push" slots and also change the plans for growth to instead backfill D10. Would be a real shame, but you gotta do what you gotta do.


well they can also start the move to all MPEG 4 quicker then planed.

kill off SD vers of channels that are in HD and move the SD only channels to MPEG 4.

Maybe if things get real bad move the RSN HD back to the spot beams.


----------



## longrider

LameLefty said:


> But D14 is being built on an SS/L (Space Systems/Loral) satellite bus. Always a good idea to spread your risk and help keep competition alive in the satellite industry.


I probably should have said all the *existing* HD sats...  I was aware that D14 was awarded to SS/L and I have wondered if that was at least partially due to the issues being experienced. However to be fair the Spaceways were engineered by Hughes for internet and then signed over to DirecTV and changed to TV usage. The dynamic beam shaping was intended for the ability to move bandwidth where needed on an as needed basis which doesnt really carry over to TV transmissions very well.


----------



## sigma1914

JoeTheDragon said:


> well they can also start the move to all MPEG 4 quicker then planed.
> 
> kill off SD vers of channels that are in HD and move the SD only channels to MPEG 4.
> 
> Maybe if things get real bad move the RSN HD back to the spot beams.


Yeah because no one has SD stuff anymore.


----------



## harsh

I think it is justified to consider D10 a lemon.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> I think it is justified to consider D10 a lemon.


Thanks for that incisive appraisal of the situation. The uninformed comments from a non-subscriber, showing no understanding of the technical, regulatory and operational issues, does the rest of the Forum a great service. Thank you for that.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

LameLefty said:


> Thanks for that incisive appraisal of the situation. The uninformed comments from a non-subscriber, showing no understanding of the technical, regulatory and operational issues, does the rest of the Forum a great service. Thank you for that.


...not to mention D10 is and has been working now for a while....doing what its designed to do. Beats that Dish sat that simply went into the dumpster, which is the only TV sat of late to deserve the "lemon" label.


----------



## Christopher Gould

I know its not the same system bit direct1 operated on backup processor for a good chunk of its life.


----------



## inkahauts

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...not to mention D10 is and has been working now for a while....doing what its designed to do. Beats that Dish sat that simply went into the dumpster, which is the only TV sat of late to deserve the "lemon" label.


And technically, I can't even see calling the dish sat a lemon. It was the rocket that was the lemon, so it never even got to got to the point where it could be used but failed to work properly.


----------



## inkahauts

YakeVlad said:


> Agreed. The way I see it, SD service will be phased out over time in a similar but inverse manner to the way HD was expanded. Once the number of SD sets reaches a point where maintaining the SD feed is no longer financially justified, or the viewership of a channel reaches a similar point, I think you'll see the SD feeds begin to go the way of the dodo.


I'll go one step further and say they will do it the same way they moved people from hd mpeg2 to hd mpeg4. That's the only logical way to do it.


----------



## inkahauts

JoeTheDragon said:


> well they can also start the move to all MPEG 4 quicker then planed.
> 
> kill off SD vers of channels that are in HD and move the SD only channels to MPEG 4.
> 
> Maybe if things get real bad move the RSN HD back to the spot beams.


I could maybe seem them doing that to a few local channels, the smallest markets so they can have more open freq for conus, if its at all feisable, but otherwise, that's to big a thing to try in such a short order. They couldn't do it, they don't have enough receivers.


----------



## inkahauts

I guess my question here is, does using the backup system mean using a backup source of fuel, or does it pull from the same fuel supply? That could weigh on its life heavily, assuming nothing else goes wrong with the backup propulsion systems.


----------



## dishrich

JoeTheDragon said:


> Maybe if things get real bad move the RSN HD back to the spot beams.


Good idea - NOT, since all those RSN HD conus feeds do double-duty as the season ticket (NBA, NHL, etc) feeds!
I'm SURE those subs w/HD & paying a premium, wouldn't mind having to go back to SD-only viewing...


----------



## markrogo

inkahauts said:


> I guess my question here is, does using the backup system mean using a backup source of fuel, or does it pull from the same fuel supply? That could weigh on its life heavily, assuming nothing else goes wrong with the backup propulsion systems.


It should be using the same fuel supply. But it's not a good thing that it's on the backup system


----------



## inkahauts

"markrogo" said:


> It should be using the same fuel supply. But it's not a good thing that it's on the backup system


Well, then my next question Would be, is the backup system identical to the main system, and simply a replica redundant system, or is it less powerful or has less capability to steer in some way? I realize not having a redundant system is not good, but if the backup is fully capable, but totally separate, its possible this will never fail.

However, I have to wonder since it does have to be a concern, will they eventually use all it's capacity for push channels since if they where lost it would not be anywhere near the loss as compared to actual live channels? Or would they maybe use it along with the other sats and lower all their loads allowing them to conserve more power, and possibly extending their lives some, but also making it easy to simply turn on more transponders should they have to abandon d10.


----------



## HoTat2

While I have no doubt DIRECTV has a viable backup plan in the event of D10's potential failure, I still can't see how the possible loss of 14 CONUS transponders at 103W or "103cb" is not going to cause severe limitations in HD capacity, particularly if it happens sometime in the interim of D14's and now a much future D15's launch and operation.

Sure hope D10's backup system holds up....


----------



## hdtvfan0001

inkahauts said:


> And technically, I can't even see calling the dish sat a lemon. It was the rocket that was the lemon, so it never even got to got to the point where it could be used but failed to work properly.


Valid point. But from an operational/functinal standpoint....the Dish sat failed to provide the service, whereas D10 is still doing its job (albeit via a backup configuration). Gee...I suspect that's the very reason they HAVE backup systems.


----------



## dpeters11

Seems like Dish has had more issues at least this year that have noticeably affected consumers. That's the most important measure, does the average customer notice? Sure, DirecTV moved D10 to work on the transponders, but for the user, it was seamless.


----------



## Shades228

sigma1914 said:


> Yeah because no one has SD stuff anymore.


People on here have been speculating that the cost to upgrade everyone is around the 500 mil mark. So depending on the numbers and the time frames it could be possible that it might be cheaper to do that. However the main problem would just be the pure number of receivers it would take. I'm not sure they couldn't get a new sat launched in the same time it would take to produce all those receivers let alone install them.

They'll use the existing birds up there and if they have to cut back on PPV channels and up the compression temporarily it seems that would make more sense. If this happened in 2 years I could see the mass exodus to mpeg 4 starting early.


----------



## loudo

All I want for Christmas, is some new HD channels.


----------



## Sixto

The exact words:"Next, we are accelerating the launch of DIRECTV 14 and the recently approved DIRECTV 15 satellite into 2014, because our DIRECTV 10 satellite has had technical issues and is now operating on its backup propulsion system. Currently, DIRECTV 10 is operating normally, and we expect that it will continue to do so. However, in case the propulsion system fails, we have developed a backup plan to minimize any potential disruption."​


----------



## RAD

Sixto said:


> Next, we are accelerating the launch of DIRECTV 14 and the recently approved DIRECTV 15 satellite into 2014...


Not sure if that means that D14 will go up sooner then 2014 or just that D15 was moved up to 2014? I forget, what was the original target for D14?


----------



## LameLefty

RAD said:


> Not sure if that means that D14 will go up sooner then 2014 or just that D15 was moved up to 2014? I forget, what was the original target for D14?


I was under the impression (and I'd have to go back into some of the investor presentations) that D14 was scheduled for 2013. I could easily be misremembering however.

EDITED TO ADD: Found it. Page 95 of the 2010 Investor Day presentation shows D14 targeted for June 2013. Perhaps that's no longer accurate, or perhaps they meant that D15 will follow more quickly than planned, in 2014.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> Thanks for that incisive appraisal of the situation. The uninformed comments from a non-subscriber, showing no understanding of the technical, regulatory and operational issues, does the rest of the Forum a great service. Thank you for that.


Given the history of DIRECTV 10 from the early spot beam issues to the "amelioration" and now the primary propulsion system failure, you have to be a pretty hard core party liner to see the trials of the satellite as being nominal.

Only an apologist could see recognition of failures of a Boeing satellite as a slight on DIRECTV.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

harsh said:


> Given the history of DIRECTV 10 from the early spot beam issues to the "amelioration" and now the primary propulsion system failure, you have to be a pretty hard core party liner to see the trials of the satellite as being nominal.
> 
> Only an apologist could see recognition of failures of a Boeing satellite as a slight on DIRECTV.


Your signature seems diametrically opposed to your posting much of the time.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> I was under the impression (and I'd have to go back into some of the investor presentations) that D14 was scheduled for 2013. I could easily be misremembering however.
> 
> EDITED TO ADD: Found it. Page 95 of the 2010 Investor Day presentation shows D14 targeted for June 2013. Perhaps that's no longer accurate, or perhaps they meant that D15 will follow more quickly than planned, in 2014.


As noted in the Arianespace launch announcement in *September of 2011* the date was pushed out to 2014.


Arianespace press release said:


> The satellites will be launched on Ariane 5 from Europe's Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana in 2014. DIRECTV-14 is currently being built by Space Systems LORAL of California. The DIRECTV-15 satellite is in the final stages of contract award.


----------



## sigma1914

harsh said:


> Given the history of DIRECTV 10 from the early spot beam issues to the "amelioration" and now the primary propulsion system failure, you have to be a pretty hard core party liner to see the trials of the satellite as being nominal.
> 
> Only an apologist could see recognition of failures of a Boeing satellite as a slight on DIRECTV.


You called D10 a lemon. However, yesterday DirecTV said, "DIRECTV 10 is operating normally, and we expect that it will continue to do so."

Lemons don't operate normally and no one expects them to. Keep trying to stir the pot.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I think there's a difference between operating at 100% and operating normally (or nominally.) These birds are built with multiple redundant systems and can continue to operate normally even with multiple system failures.


----------



## sigma1914

Stuart Sweet said:


> I think there's a difference between operating at 100% and operating normally (or nominally.) These birds are built with multiple redundant systems and can continue to operate normally even with multiple system failures.


Agreed, D10 isn't 100% fine and dandy. However, it's no lemon as somebody tried to claim.


----------



## LameLefty

Regarding propulsion systems, the Boeing spec-sheet for D10-11-12 simply states 4 XIPS primary thrusters and an apogee motor. The apogee motor is generally used for orbit raising after launch and is almost certainly NOT what the recent failure report references. The XIPS thrusters are very likely powered and controlled by redundant systems - it's probably one of those systems, or a component thereof, which has failed. That means redundancy is reduced or eliminated in the system, depending on the exact nature of the failure.

Not to feed treats to the Doom Doggie, but speaking from a pragmatic perspective, Directv has to be somewhat concerned about a prop failure because not only does something like that impact operations, it also impacts orbit raising for disposal into the "graveyard orbit" as required by the FCC and international regulations. Once a replacement is available, you would want to clear out that slot relatively quickly and get the impaired vehicle out of the arc of operating satellites so that further failures in the same system don't impact the rest of the fleet.


----------



## Sixto

From today's 10-Q:"We have entered into contracts for the construction and launch of two new satellites: D14, which we expect to launch in the first quarter of 2014 and D15, which we expect to launch in the fourth quarter of 2014. D14 and D15 are expected to provide us additional HD, replacement, and backup capacity.

Total cash payments under these agreements aggregate to $580 million, payable as follows $53 million in the remainder of 2011, $215 million in 2012, $229 million in 2013, $57 million in 2014, and $26 million in 2015."​


----------



## cypherx

Sixto said:


> From today's 10-Q:"We have entered into contracts for the construction and launch of two new satellites: D14, which we expect to launch in the first quarter of 2014 and D15, which we expect to launch in the fourth quarter of 2014. D14 and D15 are expected to provide us additional HD, replacement, and backup capacity.
> 
> Total cash payments under these agreements aggregate to $580 million, payable as follows $53 million in the remainder of 2011, $215 million in 2012, $229 million in 2013, $57 million in 2014, and $26 million in 2015."​


Thanks Sixto. For some reason I thought D14 was due in Spring 2013? I know I used to make jokes that it was to be launched after the world ends on 12/21/2012 (joking).

I guess that was pushed back a bit and I didn't pay attention to those details.


----------



## Sixto

More:"We may purchase in-orbit and launch insurance to mitigate the potential financial impact of satellite launch and in-orbit failures if the premium costs are considered economic relative to the risk of satellite failure. The insurance generally covers the unamortized book value of covered satellites. We do not insure against lost revenues in the event of a total or partial loss of the capacity of a satellite. We generally rely on in-orbit spare satellites and excess transponder capacity at key orbital slots to mitigate the impact a satellite failure could have on our ability to provide service. At September 30, 2011, the net book value of in-orbit satellites was $1,577 million, all of which was uninsured.

During the third quarter of 2011, the propulsion system used to maintain our D10 satellite's position in orbit temporarily ceased to function. If the propulsion system were to permanently fail, we would be required to de-orbit the satellite and record an impairment charge for its remaining book value, which was approximately $274 million at September 30, 2011. We currently have sufficient backup capacity to continue broadcasting most of the channels broadcast from this satellite; however, we would lose some of our HD pay-per-view channels if this satellite has to be de-orbited before additional capacity becomes available. We do not believe the loss of such channels would materially affect our results of operations or financial position."​


----------



## Sixto

cypherx said:


> Thanks Sixto. For some reason I thought D14 was due in Spring 2013? I know I used to make jokes that it was to be launched after the world ends on 12/21/2012 (joking).
> 
> I guess that was pushed back a bit and I didn't pay attention to those details.


Yes, it was pushed back a few months ago, but now moved up a little.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Well when you put it that way, it doesn't sound so bad.


----------



## cforrest

Sixto beat me to the D10 part of the 10Q. I think that pretty much explains the slow rollout of additional HD we have seen and it will be slow until D14 gets launched and put into operation. Unless HD PPV usage goes down and D* removes more of them than usual for additional HD channels, we shall see.


----------



## RAD

Interesting story about who's building DIRECTV 15, http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/111104-astrium-build-directv15.html



> PARIS - Astrium Satellites of Europe, in a rare contract win in North America, will build the large DirecTV 15 television broadcasting satellite for DirecTV Group under a contract announced Nov. 4 by both companies.
> 
> DirecTV said Nov. 3 that it is accelerating the launch of its DirecTV 14 and the just-ordered DirecTV 15 spacecraft to protect against the possible in-orbit failure of DirecTV 10, whose primary propulsion system failed this summer.
> 
> DirecTV 10 is now using its backup propulsion system and is operating normally, DirecTV Chief Financial Officer Patrick T. Doyle said in a conference call with investors. DirecTV 14, under construction by Space Systems/Loral of Palo Alto, Calif., is scheduled for launch in early 2014. DirecTV 15 is scheduled for launch in late 2014, DirecTV said.
> 
> DirecTV 15, which will be Astrium's first-ever satellite for the largest U.S. satellite television broadcaster, will use Astrium's Eurostar 3000 platform and will carry 30 high-power transponders in Ku-band, 24 transponders in Ka-band and 18 transponders in the so-called reverse band using spectrum at 17 and 24 gigahertz.
> 
> The reverse band has long been used for satellite uplink signals. In response to requests from industry, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission and international regulators have freed this spectrum for downlink services as well, a decision that could free up additional spectrum for satellite operators.
> 
> DirecTV 15 is expected to weigh 6,300 kilograms at launch and will deliver 16 kilowatts of power to its payload at the end of its 15-year service life.
> 
> Europe's two principal commercial satellite manufacturers, Astrium Satellites and Thales Alenia Space, have been successful on the worldwide market but have struggled to establish a foothold in North America, in part because of the high value of the euro against the U.S. dollar.
> 
> Philip Goswitz, DirecTV senior vice president for space and communications, said his company is "pleased to begin a new relationship with Astrium &#8230; which has a solid reputation for technical excellence and high reliability."
> 
> DirecTV 10's propulsion issue is not the first glitch aboard the satellite since its July 2007 launch. DirecTV said it suffered a post-launch on-board failure of a portion of its payload that made it unable to provide the expected capacity to certain markets.
> 
> DirecTV 10 is a Boeing 702 model satellite designed to operate for 15 years in orbit. In a Nov. 3 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), DirecTV said if the satellite's propulsion system fails altogether, it would be obliged to record an impairment charge for the satellite's book value, which as of Sept. 30 was $274 million.
> 
> DirecTV has the equivalent of four satellites under construction that will cost a total of $1.729 billion including launch and insurance, plus $74 million paid already in 2011, the company said in its SEC filing. Future payments will total $83 million in 2011, $343 million in 2012, $334 million in 2013, $145 million in 2014, $116 million in 2015 and $708 million in subsequent years.
> 
> While the DirecTV 14 and DirecTV 15 contracts were structured as conventional procurements, DirecTV's two other satellites, called ISDLA-1 and ISDLA-2, are being purchased from Space Systems/Loral by satellite fleet operator Intelsat of Luxembourg and Washington. Intelsat is leasing two satellites' Ku-band capacity - a total of 144 transponders - to DirecTV for the satellites' 15-year service lives, while retaining 10 C-band transponders on each for its own use.


With all those Ku band transponders sounds like it's going to 101 and they'll add Ka there for increased capacity?


----------



## David Ortiz

RAD said:


> Interesting story about who's building DIRECTV 15, http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/111104-astrium-build-directv15.html
> 
> With all those Ku band transponders sounds like it's going to 101 and they'll add Ka there for increased capacity?


Interesting. But the reverse band slots are at 99 and 103, not 101.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

> DirecTV 15 will carry 30 high-power transponders in Ku-band, 24 transponders in Ka-band and 18 transponders in the so-called reverse band using spectrum at 17 and 24 gigahertz.


So how many more channels will that give us?

And whats the specs for D14?

D12 was supposed to be a back up, good thing they launched it.


----------



## RAD

David Ortiz said:


> Interesting. But the reverse band slots are at 99 and 103, not 101.


I thought they did have some at 101 and were using them for backhaul at the moment. It's also interesting no mention of any spotbeam transponders.


----------



## David Ortiz

RAD said:


> I thought they did have some at 101 and were using them for backhaul at the moment. It's also interesting no mention of any spotbeam transponders.


Ka yes, but not reverse band. It seems that DIRECTV 15 is destined for 101 as a replacement. Until then, it can be used at 99 or 103, perhaps even displacing one of the Ka only birds to 101 once new ODUs are ready.


----------



## RAD

David Ortiz said:


> Ka yes, but not reverse band. It seems that DIRECTV 15 is destined for 101 as a replacement. Until then, it can be used at 99 or 103, perhaps even displacing one of the Ka only birds to 101 once new ODUs are ready.


OK, thanks, can't keep track of all this stuff.


----------



## LameLefty

cypherx said:


> Thanks Sixto. For some reason I thought D14 was due in Spring 2013? I know I used to make jokes that it was to be launched after the world ends on 12/21/2012 (joking).
> 
> I guess that was pushed back a bit and I didn't pay attention to those details.


You should actually read ALL the posts in a thread like this one. I posted about this exact issue this morning. D14 was originally slated for June 2013 but that has obviously slipped by about 6 months.


----------



## evan_s

RAD said:


> Interesting story about who's building DIRECTV 15, http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/111104-astrium-build-directv15.html
> 
> With all those Ku band transponders sounds like it's going to 101 and they'll add Ka there for increased capacity?


I don't think there is anywhere that DirecTV currently has the licenses to use all those TPs at a single spot. 99/103 have Ka and RBSS but no normal Ku band. 101 has Ku and Ka but the Ka is for backhauling and would require approval from fcc to change it's use and new LNBs. Not to mention there is no RBSS at 101.

Even if DirecTV had a slot where it could use all those TPs I can't imagine that the sat could handle powering all of them at the same time. On the Ka side alone, it has around twice the TP's as d10-12 assuming they are all conus TPs. Unless this is an absolutely massive sat I don't see how it could power all those TP's + full Ku band and a full rbss. The massive amount of TP's it has on it have to be for flexibility so that it can end up covering almost any slot it needs during it's lifetime.


----------



## David Ortiz

evan_s said:


> I don't think there is anywhere that DirecTV currently has the licenses to use all those TPs at a single spot. 99/103 have Ka and RBSS but no normal Ku band. 101 has Ku and Ka but the Ka is for backhauling and would require approval from fcc to change it's use and new LNBs. Not to mention there is no RBSS at 101.
> 
> Even if DirecTV had a slot where it could use all those TPs I can't imagine that the sat could handle powering all of them at the same time. On the Ka side alone, it has around twice the TP's as d10-12 assuming they are all conus TPs. Unless this is an absolutely massive sat I don't see how it could power all those TP's + full Ku band and a full rbss. The massive amount of TP's it has on it have to be for flexibility so that it can end up covering almost any slot it needs during it's lifetime.


It's likely that a new ODU will at least cover Ka at 99°, 101°, and 103°, Reverse band at 99° and 103°, and Ku at 101° (and perhaps 110° and 119°). Ka at 97° is also a possibility. It remains to be seen if a simple LNB replacement will be available.


----------



## evan_s

I don't doubt that a new LNB is in our future eventually because it will be needed to take advantage of RBSS and 97 (if DirecTV gets it) but that is an expensive and time consuming process to swap LNBs for all their existing HD customers and doesn't offer immediate increased bandwidth to all their existing customers. Even looking at something as far out as the end of 2014 for the launch of d15 the new lnb might not be in place.

I'd bet that there will be 2 versions of what ever they end up with 1 covering just the core of 97?/99/101/103 and a second that also covers 110/119 that will coexist just like the current sl3/sl5.


----------



## cypherx

evan_s said:


> I'd bet that there will be 2 versions of what ever they end up with 1 covering just the core of 97?/99/101/103 and a second that also covers 110/119 that will coexist just like the current sl3/sl5.


Could you just swap out the new LNB you think on the existing Slimline dish, or would you need a new dish with a different shape / size, or re-aim the thing?


----------



## P Smith

I'm pretty sure the reflector will be adequate (for 99/101/103 positions) for all freq ranges: Ku, Ka, RBS.


----------



## LameLefty

P Smith said:


> I'm pretty sure the reflector will be adequate (for 99/101/103 positions) for all freq ranges: Ku, Ka, RBS.


And the wildcard here is if Directv gets the Ka slot at 97, which it has applied for.


----------



## inkahauts

If they can get 97, I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped using 110 and 119 all together, and maybe leased that space out, especially if they can get far more bandwidth at 97. What all are they trying to get at 97? Ka, ku, bss, or all three? Does someone else have bandwidth in one or two of those spectrums that also has some at say 110 or 119 that might be willing to do a swap, so directv can have all theirs in one place, as would the other company? Make everyone's dishs a little easier to develop maybe?

If I where in engineering right now, I'd be developing a dish/lnb system that picked up all three at 97, 99, 101, and 103, and I'd be trying to get it ready for launch in short order. The sooner they move to that, the less people they will have to spend money on to switch people latter.

And that one sat is massive! I wonder if some of it is spot beams, say in one freq, while conus in a couple others? especially the bss being spots would make sense to me. If they get approval to do bss spots from say, 101' I can absolutely see this as being a replacement for one or more sats currently sitting there now. I forget when the expected lifespans of the sats there ends, but I think within a year or two of the launch of d15 one of them is supposed to go out.

Someone remind me, is the space that directv is going to lease on the other two sats for Latin America' or is that for us too? I can't remember where those are going.


----------



## inkahauts

"LameLefty" said:


> And the wildcard here is if Directv gets the Ka slot at 97, which it has applied for.


Based on the reflector being able to get all the way over to 110 and 119, I would think that they could develope an lnb that could pick up 97 with the current reflector,especially if they didn't need to pick up 110 and 119. Picking up all six might be a bit more tedious. I forget, did directv give up on bss at 105 I think it was?


----------



## wmb

evan_s said:


> The massive amount of TP's it has on it have to be for flexibility so that it can end up covering almost any slot it needs during it's lifetime.


I can understand redundancy being an important attribute, but locational flexibility? The satelliltes sort of come with flexibility... they can broadcast anything from their one location. Adding launch weight to have the capability to move them from location A to location B just does not seem as effective as making sure they can broadacst as much as possible from where they are.


----------



## spear61

"While the DirecTV 14 and DirecTV 15 contracts were structured as conventional procurements, DirecTV’s two other satellites, called ISDLA-1 and ISDLA-2, are being purchased from Space Systems/Loral by satellite fleet operator Intelsat of Luxembourg and Washington. Intelsat is leasing two satellites’ Ku-band capacity — a total of 144 transponders — to DirecTV for the satellites’ 15-year service lives, while retaining 10 C-band transponders on each for its own use. "

Import/Export Bank financing probably drives this deal.


----------



## RobertE

LameLefty said:


> And the wildcard here is if Directv gets the Ka slot at 97, which it has applied for.


I think it will be fine. I can hold the 95 lnb in the proper place and get a very nice signal, so I see no reason why an LNB that covers 119-95 (or more) couldn't be done as long as polarization remains circular.


----------



## HoTat2

TheRatPatrol said:


> So how many more channels will that give us?
> 
> And whats the specs for D14?
> 
> ...


Hard to say since we don't really know what slot D15 is intended for, and while we know D14 is destined for 99W, strangely enough no official FCC filings have been issued yet for it's Ka band payload, only the RDBS one. In fact AFAIK the FCC documentation on D14 released so far always refers to D14 as "RB-1" and never "D14," " a hybrid satellite," "D14/RB-1," etc. to indicate it will have any other payloads than the 17/24 GHz RDBS one.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> You should actually read ALL the posts in a thread like this one. I posted about this exact issue this morning. D14 was originally slated for June 2013 but that has obviously slipped by about 6 months.


Of course that depends on which story you buy into: the 2010 version (2013), the Summer of 2011 version (2014), White's (2013) or the 10Q version (2014).


----------



## P Smith

harsh said:


> Of course that depends on which story you buy into: the 2010 version (2013), the Summer of 2011 version (2014), White's (2013) or the 10Q version (2014).


I would buy it when I could start tracking it by published TLEs.


----------



## LameLefty

P Smith said:


> I would buy it when I could start tracking it by published TLEs.


Fortunately, no one is required to "buy" anything except Directv, which has to buy the satellite and launch services. 

I won't pay terribly close attention to target dates (which are planned literally years in advance) until I start seeing grants of launch-and-operate authority from the FCC.

Of course, if one's strategic plans consist mostly of trying to remember to feed and walk the dog tomorrow, one might be forgiven for not realizing that aerospace businesses tend to operate on somewhat larger scales and somewhat longer time frames.


----------



## evan_s

cypherx said:


> Could you just swap out the new LNB you think on the existing Slimline dish, or would you need a new dish with a different shape / size, or re-aim the thing?


I'd bet that a swap should be possible assuming they design it that way and it would definitely reduce the costs. A simple LNB swap is much easier than installing a new dish.


----------



## evan_s

inkahauts said:


> If they can get 97, I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped using 110 and 119 all together, and maybe leased that space out, especially if they can get far more bandwidth at 97. What all are they trying to get at 97? Ka, ku, bss, or all three? Does someone else have bandwidth in one or two of those spectrums that also has some at say 110 or 119 that might be willing to do a swap, so directv can have all theirs in one place, as would the other company?


97 is a Ka license they are trying for. There isn't a ku license there (spacing is larger on ku currently but an inbetween license would end up at 97). I don't think there was a rbss license at 97 (I recall 95 and 99) but I could be wrong.

Getting the 97 ka license would get directv a lot of potential bandwidth but I don't see 119 going anywhere for quite a while. Completely replacing 119 (110 was empty last I saw) would require replacing a lot of legacy phase 3 and SL5 dishes and since it covers a lot of sd locals with spots there are likely to be lots of installs out there that would need to be replaced.


----------



## evan_s

wmb said:


> I can understand redundancy being an important attribute, but locational flexibility? The satelliltes sort of come with flexibility... they can broadcast anything from their one location. Adding launch weight to have the capability to move them from location A to location B just does not seem as effective as making sure they can broadacst as much as possible from where they are.


It definitely does sound odd but I'm not sure what other option there could be. I don't see anyway that the sat could power that many TPs. Just to put it in perspective there are 3 sats at 101 providing all the ku tp's there and 3 sats at 103 providing ka tp's and the specs for d15 would seemingly be able to cover all the conus tps for all 6 of those sats + rbss. Granted it's not really completely replacing all 6 sats as 101 and 103 each have 1 sat providing only spots and d10/d12 also provide spots but it's still easily several sats worth of TPs.

Even if they some how could manage to get enough power to run all those TPs there isn't an orbital slot that they could use to do so. At 99/103 they have Ka and rbss and they have Ku and Ka at 101 (ka is currently backhaul) but no where do they have all 3 because there is no where in their core grouping where there are licenses for all 3.

You can look up the boeing specs for d10-12 at:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/dtv10-11-12_factsheet.pdf

They list 16kw power at EOL 6060k launch weight which is very similar to the d15 sats so I just don't see any way that D15 could be that much more powerful.


----------



## LameLefty

Here's one (non-intuitive) aspect to aerospace engineering: the marginal costs of adding transponders to the satellite bus is basically lost in the noise. A large, high-powered comsat bus costs a sizable amount of money. The costs are in the engineering and overhead for the acquisition costs. The payload costs aren't insignificant by themselves but you've got to pay them anyway. Adding more transponders don't cost nearly as much as the satellite bus itself, along with all its ancillary support systems like power, thermal control, TT&C, propulsion . . . 

The other biggest costs is the essentially fixed cost of launch - ILS or Arianespace or ULA or SpaceX or Launchers 'R' Us will charge you basically the same amount to put your payload into a gestationary transfer orbit regardless of what the satellite bus masses (so long as it's less than their maximum payload) and no matter how physically big it is, provided it fits inside one of their standard payload fairings when packaged for launch. 

Of course, once we see FCC documents regarding these satellites, their intended uses will become much more clear.


----------



## inkahauts

LameLefty said:


> Here's one (non-intuitive) aspect to aerospace engineering: the marginal costs of adding transponders to the satellite bus is basically lost in the noise. A large, high-powered comsat bus costs a sizable amount of money. The costs are in the engineering and overhead for the acquisition costs. The payload costs aren't insignificant by themselves but you've got to pay them anyway. Adding more transponders don't cost nearly as much as the satellite bus itself, along with all its ancillary support systems like power, thermal control, TT&C, propulsion . . .
> 
> The other biggest costs is the essentially fixed cost of launch - ILS or Arianespace or ULA or SpaceX or Launchers 'R' Us will charge you basically the same amount to put your payload into a gestationary transfer orbit regardless of what the satellite bus masses (so long as it's less than their maximum payload) and no matter how physically big it is, provided it fits inside one of their standard payload fairings when packaged for launch.
> 
> Of course, once we see FCC documents regarding these satellites, their intended uses will become much more clear.


In other words, adding extra transponders doesn't add much cost to the sat, so they may have added them to allow for backup and redundancy should another sat fail, allowing this particular sat to be a jack of all trades, so to speak? The I can fix that for you sat? :lol:


----------



## harsh

sigma1914 said:


> Agreed, D10 isn't 100% fine and dandy. However, it's no lemon as somebody tried to claim.


A "lemon" is something that repeatedly fails to meet standards of quality and performance. In Oregon, we have a three strikes lemon law.


----------



## P Smith

harsh said:


> A "lemon" is something that repeatedly fails to meet standards of quality and performance. In Oregon, we have a three strikes lemon law.


That's why the satellites build in California.


----------



## Drew2k

harsh said:


> A "lemon" is something that repeatedly fails to meet standards of quality and performance.


What? No attribution for Wikipedia?



> *Lemon laws* are American state laws that provide a remedy for purchasers of cars in order to compensate for cars that repeatedly fail to meet standards of quality and performance. These vehicles are called lemons. The federal lemon law (the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) protects citizens of all states. State lemon laws vary by state and may not necessarily cover used or leased cars. The rights afforded to consumers by lemon laws may exceed the warranties expressed in purchase contracts. _Lemon law_ is the common nickname for these laws, but each state has different names for the laws and acts.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> A "lemon" is something that repeatedly fails to meet standards of quality and performance. In Oregon, we have a three strikes lemon law.


Neat.

Guess that clearly *eliminates* D10, based on that definition.

Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## LameLefty

Well I'm sure Directv's board, executive management team and investors appreciate the doggie's homespun Pacific Northwest definitions as they make their technical and financial decisions going forward.

Meanwhile, let's try to stick at least to educated and intelligent discussion of the technical and regulatory issues with Directv's satellite constellation, shall we?


----------



## JoeTheDragon

inkahauts said:


> In other words, adding extra transponders doesn't add much cost to the sat, so they may have added them to allow for backup and redundancy should another sat fail, allowing this particular sat to be a jack of all trades, so to speak? The I can fix that for you sat? :lol:


But they do cost in power.


----------



## LameLefty

JoeTheDragon said:


> But they do cost in power.


Only if they're being used.


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> That's why the satellites build in California.


Maybe that's why DIRECTV has chosen to go off-continent for DIRECTV 15?


----------



## wmb

inkahauts said:


> In other words, adding extra transponders doesn't add much cost to the sat, so they may have added them to allow for backup and redundancy should another sat fail, allowing this particular sat to be a jack of all trades, so to speak? The I can fix that for you sat? :lol:


but in this case, isn't there a trade off between adding transponders and additional fuel for station keeping in terms of launch weight?

My understanding is that fuel is the biggest consideration in the satellite's life. This translates into making most effective use of the mass that you load into the launch vehicle.On the other hand, it seems someone here said 15 years was the practical life for the electronics/solar cells. So, once you have fuel capacity for that 15 years, it seems adding relatively low cost electronics may be useful.


----------



## harsh

wmb said:


> My understanding is that fuel is the biggest consideration in the satellite's life.


The biggest concern is electric power. As has been pointed out, inactive transponders don't use much, if any.

Fuel only becomes an issue if station keeping gyroscopes fail and they have to use extra thrusting to maintain orientation (or they have to shuttle the satellite back and forth to a repair slot as was the case with D10).


----------



## LameLefty

wmb said:


> but in this case, isn't there a trade off between adding transponders and additional fuel for station keeping in terms of launch weight?
> 
> My understanding is that fuel is the biggest consideration in the satellite's life. This translates into making most effective use of the mass that you load into the launch vehicle.On the other hand, it seems someone here said 15 years was the practical life for the electronics/solar cells. So, once you have fuel capacity for that 15 years, it seems adding relatively low cost electronics may be useful.


Fuel is one of the major drivers in satellite lifetime, but so too is power, electronics, etc. You need the fuel for station-keeping, orbital slot changes and orbit-raising for disposal. But as pointed out several times in the thread, solar cells and battery life degrade with time, and control electronics eventually fail as well. Extra mass is always a consideration, but you can trade can off payload and operational flexibility for fuel supply. You can also consider that different satellite buses have different masses - one model may have more volume and mass capacity than another. Similarly, some launch vehicles may have more payload capacity and can launch heavier satellites to the same orbit ... LOTS of things to trade off in satellite and mission designs. And remember, too, the comments made in that same 2010 Investor Day presentation that I referenced a while back in this thread - some of the Ku satellites are going to be nearing end-of-life in the coming years. Building larger, more capable and more flexible satellites capable of balancing more possible configurations might be the way Directv is heading here.

However, satellite construction is a multi-year process with lots of steps - most of the reports we'll be reading are generalizations and simplifications for a non-technical lay audience. The actual planned payload and operational plans will be set forth in FCC docs in the coming months and years.


----------



## P Smith

> Fuel only becomes an issue if station keeping gyroscopes fail and they have to use extra thrusting to maintain orientation (or they have to shuttle the satellite back and forth to a repair slot as was the case with D10).


gyroscopes are using as source to measure position/angles not to rotate the bus - perhaps you mean momentum wheels


----------



## Davenlr

wmb said:


> but in this case, isn't there a trade off between adding transponders and additional fuel for station keeping in terms of launch weight?


I believe weight has a big play. The more transponders, the heavier. If they are all designed to be on at the same time, the corresponding weight of the additional batteries/cells, solar panels, and most everything increases. I really don't think the fuel would need to be increases, as being weightless in space shouldn't require any additional fuel for station-keeping.

Launch costs would increase as well, as I believe I read that one of DirecTv's recent launches was either near or at the rockets weight capacity, or broke a record or something along those lines.


----------



## LameLefty

Davenlr said:


> I believe weight has a big play. The more transponders, the heavier. If they are all designed to be on at the same time, the corresponding weight of the additional batteries/cells, solar panels, and most everything increases. I really don't think the fuel would need to be increases, as being weightless in space shouldn't require any additional fuel for station-keeping.


Mass is definitely a factor in how much fuel is needed for station keeping and other operations. Force = mass x acceleration. But I stand by my assertion that fuel mass isn't the driver in how the spacecraft is ultimately outfitted. See my earlier posts on this.



> Launch costs would increase as well, as I believe I read that one of DirecTv's recent launches was either near or at the rockets weight capacity, or broke a record or something along those lines.


Launch costs are not based on mass. Launch providers have essentially fixed overhead costs. They charge most customers more or less the same amount to put anything that will fit inside one of their standard payload fairings into a standard transfer orbit, up to the maximum amount their launcher can lift.

Some launchers have higher payload weights than others - If Directv could afford to pay half a billion dollars to ULA, they could buy a ride on a Delta IV Heavy and put over 13,000 kg into a standard GTO. But they're not stupid and instead will ride on an Ariane V, which is probably more expensive than a Proton from ILS but which also has more payload capability and better recent record of success. Since it's launching from a near-equatorial launch site, the satellite also should have a shorter time from launch to operation than ILS can manage with its high-latitude launch site in Kazakhstan.

Like I've been saying, LOTS of trade-offs in satellite design and mission planning.


----------



## HoTat2

Davenlr said:


> I believe weight has a big play. The more transponders, the heavier. If they are all designed to be on at the same time, the corresponding weight of the additional batteries/cells, solar panels, and most everything increases. * I really don't think the fuel would need to be increases, as being weightless in space shouldn't require any additional fuel for station-keeping.*
> 
> Launch costs would increase as well, as I believe I read that one of DirecTv's recent launches was either near or at the rockets weight capacity, or broke a record or something along those lines.


Oh ... I thought is would actually;

If I remember my basic phizzes correctly (been awhile  ), even in the weightlessness of space the more massive the satellite, or any other spaceborne body for that matter, requires more energy thereby greater fuel consumption to accelerate or decelerate it for station keeping maneuvers.


----------



## LameLefty

HoTat2 said:


> Oh ... I thought is would actually;
> 
> If I remember my basic phizzes correctly (been awhile  ), even in the weightlessness of space the more massive the satellite, or any other spaceborne body for that matter, requires more energy thereby greater fuel consumption to accelerate or decelerate it for station keeping maneuvers.


 F=m•a

It's not just a good idea, _it's the law!_


----------



## LameLefty

Okay, I dug around and found out the details on the satellites Directv will be licensing from Intelsat. They are going to 95ºW for Latin American service.

http://www.ssloral.com/html/pressreleases/pr20110908.html


----------



## LameLefty

Some good news for Directv's constellation (especially for the many millions of customers still receiving SD locals) . . . Directv has applied for a 9 year extension to their license for D4S based on estimated fuel use.

(LINK REMOVED - see below)


----------



## cforrest

LameLefty said:


> Some good news for Directv's constellation (especially for the many millions of customers still receiving SD locals) . . . Directv has applied for a 9 year extension to their license for D4S based on estimated fuel use.
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number


Not sure if it's just me, but the link to the filing is not working for me, fyi!


----------



## LameLefty

cforrest said:


> Not sure if it's just me, but the link to the filing is not working for me, fyi!


Typical quirky-ass government website with odd-ball links.  Try this one instead:

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/forwardtopublictabaction.do?filing_key=-235351&ssid=796318179&pgid=4


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Both links worked for me.


----------



## Sixto

LameLefty said:


> Some good news for Directv's constellation (especially for the many millions of customers still receiving SD locals) . . . Directv has applied for a 9 year extension to their license for D4S based on estimated fuel use.
> 
> (LINK REMOVED - see below)


Yep, saw that over the weekend. Good stuff, shame D10 wasn't as fortunate.


----------



## wmb

Sixto said:


> Yep, saw that over the weekend. Good stuff, shame D10 wasn't as fortunate.


<Devil's Advocate Hat>
Well, if they'd just do away with that pesky MPEG2 SD broadcasts, this would be 9 more years of broadcasting those HD basics we all want.
</Devil's Advocate Hat>


----------



## LameLefty

wmb said:


> <Devil's Advocate Hat>
> Well, if they'd just do away with that pesky MPEG2 SD broadcasts, this would be 9 more years of broadcasting those HD basics we all want.
> </Devil's Advocate Hat>


Apples to oranges here. There are MILLIONS of customers still happily receiving SD channels. And D4S is a spot-beam satellite anyway.


----------



## cforrest

LameLefty said:


> Typical quirky-ass government website with odd-ball links.  Try this one instead:
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/forwardtopublictabaction.do?filing_key=-235351&ssid=796318179&pgid=4


That worked, thanks! Linking from the FCC can be a PITA.


----------



## cypherx

LameLefty said:


> Apples to oranges here. D4S is a spot-beam satellite anyway.


Is that what the S stands for in D4S?


----------



## LameLefty

cypherx said:


> Is that what the S stands for in D4S?


Yes, same as with D9S. Spot-beams were kind of a big deal in the late 90's/early 00's, and the satellites were designated that way to easily differentiate which ones were doing national beams and which were doing spots. Now, the current design trend is to include a mixture of national and spot-beam transponders and the 'S' has gone out of fashion.


----------



## Sixto

Arianespace to launch satellite for DIRECTV Latin America: http://www.arianespace.com/arianespace/news-press-release/2011/11-14-2011-DirecTV.asp​


----------



## lwilli201

The last sentence in "About Arianespace" is interesting.

"It has a BACKLOG of 20 Ariane 5 and 17 Soyuz launches, equal to more than three years of business." (Emphasis mine) 

Does this mean that they have 37 Sats in storage waiting for launch or should it state that they have contracts to launch 37 Sats in the next 3 years. Poorly worded I would think.


----------



## P Smith

Contracts only - no one sat mfg will store their sats at launch facility for more then necessary (usually a months or so).


----------



## lwilli201

P Smith said:


> Contracts only - no one sat mfg will store their sats at launch facility for more then necessary (usually a months or so).


That is what I thought. Not good to have Billions of dollars worth of Sats setting around. Just thought the wording was interesting.


----------



## LameLefty

lwilli201 said:


> The last sentence in "About Arianespace" is interesting.
> 
> "It has a BACKLOG of 20 Ariane 5 and 17 Soyuz launches, equal to more than three years of business." (Emphasis mine)
> 
> Does this mean that they have 37 Sats in storage waiting for launch or should it state that they have contracts to launch 37 Sats in the next 3 years. Poorly worded I would think.


Satellites are usually not delivered to the launch site until 2 - 4 weeks prior to launch, depending on the satellite and depending on the launch provider's policies. Most commercial satellite vehicles are delivered as essentially sealed packages - they are more or less "plugged into" the payload fairing of the launch vehicle by a team from the satellite manufacturer and the launch provider, installed at the top of the launcher vehicle and launched as soon as possible. Not a lot of waiting around at the launch site if it can be avoided.


----------



## RobertE

Oh snap. It just dawned on me that with the change in launch sites, we won't have our Russian "nominal" vixen.


----------



## LameLefty

RF nerds - some technical filings early this week pertaining to expected off-axis signal strengths for the future BSS satellites RB-1 and RB-2 but nothing earth-shattering (except that the charts submitted to the FCC have Space Systems/Loral logos, which is interesting).

RB-1:
http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/for....do?filing_key=-236229&ssid=1150811903&pgid=2

RB-2:
http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/for....do?filing_key=-236234&ssid=1150811903&pgid=2

And for anyone else who is NOT an RF nerd, there is nothing whatsoever of interest at these links. :lol:


----------



## Davenlr

LameLefty said:


> RF nerds -


This is what those links return:


> ! Server Error: 102 (Severity 15, State 1, Line 1)
> 
> ! Server 'HEIMDAL'
> 
> Incorrect syntax near ','.
> 
> Unable to access ib_licenses info


----------



## P Smith

Some tidbits:
It's for Ground Station to 103W:


> Frequency Lower: 17300 Frequency Upper: 25250
> 17.3-17.8 GHz Frequency Band
> 24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band
> the spacecraft has 36 MHz transponders


----------



## doctor j

Davenlr said:


> This is what those links return:


Open in a new tab or window and it should work
Doctor j


----------



## cypherx

Do you think 8PSK modulation will be able to be used or is the signal to noise ratio and rain fade conditions unfavorable for such a higher order modulation rate?


----------



## doctor j

LameLefty said:


> RF nerds - some technical filings early this week pertaining to expected off-axis signal strengths for the future BSS satellites RB-1 and RB-2 but nothing earth-shattering (except that the charts submitted to the FCC have Space Systems/Loral logos, which is interesting).
> 
> RB-1:
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/for....do?filing_key=-236229&ssid=1150811903&pgid=2
> 
> RB-2:
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/for....do?filing_key=-236234&ssid=1150811903&pgid=2
> 
> And for anyone else who is NOT an RF nerd, there is nothing whatsoever of interest at these links. :lol:


REALLY:158 out of 167 pages of spectrum analyzer ocilloscope diagrams!!

What does all this really mean??

Doctor j


----------



## P Smith

A lot  - at least for that devices what located around that 8m transmitting antenna. Include TV, DVR, pacemakers in nearest town ...


----------



## P Smith

cypherx said:


> Do you think 8PSK modulation will be able to be used or is the signal to noise ratio and rain fade conditions unfavorable for such a higher order modulation rate?


Huh ? 
The 8PSK modulation already in use those Ka bands off 99W and 103W clusters.


----------



## cypherx

P Smith said:


> Huh ?
> The 8PSK modulation already in use those Ka bands off 99W and 103W clusters.


Oh I thought DirecTV was only using QPSK 3/4 FEC on Ka. I was wondering if they would use 8PSK Turbo FEC.

I'm just curious if there will be a throughput improvement on these new birds. Squeezing every last drop of efficiency out of each transponder, like how some birds out there are getting 8 HD channels on one tp or 70mbps. (Not DirecTV).


----------



## P Smith

"8PSK Turbo FEC" is proprietary dish modulation; DTV is using DVB-S2D QPSK and 8PSK modulations for Ka band [99W and 103W].

BTW, we discuss with Sixto different modulation using by DTV (here or in his main thread), so you should remember that fact].


----------



## LameLefty

This thread is (mostly) for talk, informed speculation and FCC filings regarding the Directv satellite constellation itself - modulation schemes are really kind of secondary to that, except the to extent that it affects overall working bandwidth and load-balancing around the fleet.


----------



## cypherx

LameLefty said:


> This thread is (mostly) for talk, informed speculation and FCC filings regarding the Directv satellite constellation itself - modulation schemes are really kind of secondary to that, except the to extent that it affects overall working bandwidth and load-balancing around the fleet.


I guess what I'm asking is that the modulation rate is completely independent of the bird going up.. correct? It can be changed at a moments notice?

So with that being said, I was curious if the new birds had better signal to noise and perhaps more power output that could, with more reliability sustain a higher order modulation while maintaining target rain fade and signal loss specifications.


----------



## LameLefty

cypherx said:


> So with that being said, I was curious if the new birds had better signal to noise and perhaps more power output that could, with more reliability sustain a higher order modulation while maintaining target rain fade and signal loss specifications.


That's not really known yet. The most recent filings are for "RB-1" and "RB-2", Directv's name for the BSS-band payloads on future satellite vehicles. Whether those payloads end up on dedicated BSS satellites or as secondary payloads on planned future Ka and/or Ku satellite vehicles is not known at this time.


----------



## LameLefty

Looks like Directv has applied for permission to move D1R from its current 72.5W slot to the nominal 110W slot in order to serve out its life as an on-orbit spare. Probably a good use for the old workhorse (it's over 12 years old now and definitely on it's last legs - comsats generally have 12 - 15 year design lives).

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=928940


----------



## inkahauts

Probably also part of their backup plan for d10. I haven't even looked in a while if they are broadcasting anything at 110 anymore. With them canceling d13 and no new announcement of any birds to go there, its almost like they are just sitting on it to use as trade bait, or to lease it to someone else someday.


----------



## Davenlr

Kinda would have liked to see them use those 3 KU transponders for mpeg4 HD of the (10?) most popular HD channels, since the rainfade is much less on KU. Once they started selling the SL3's though, I figured they would never use that slot for CONUS anymore.


----------



## evan_s

inkahauts said:


> Probably also part of their backup plan for d10. I haven't even looked in a while if they are broadcasting anything at 110 anymore. With them canceling d13 and no new announcement of any birds to go there, its almost like they are just sitting on it to use as trade bait, or to lease it to someone else someday.


D10 is at 103. D5 is the sat currently at 110 that was due to be replaced by the canceled D13. While both sats are already pretty old the 3 conus TPs isn't the most demanding task for a sat so they can probably cover things for a while to come.

I don't think there is anything currently on 110 but I agree that we won't see any core programing, HD included, coming from there. The SL3 pretty much seals that. I am kinda surprised that they haven't put it to use for something like international programing.


----------



## Davenlr

Could they use the 3 transponders there to provide LIL spotbeams to new, small markets? Or does the satellite there/moving there, not have that capability?


----------



## P Smith

Current channels on 110W:
Network 2


> "*DTV" 9831 8|00	-	008C	008D	-	-	"WB3 Test MPEG2"	"WB3 Test MPEG2 Channel 9831"
> "*DTV" 9827 8|00	-	0064	0065	-	-	"WB3 Test MPEG2"	"WB3 Test MPEG2 Channel 9827"	"444"
> "*DTV" 9828 8|00	-	006E	006F	-	-	"WB3 Test MPEG2"	"WB3 Test MPEG2 Channel 9828"
> "*DTV" 9829 8|00	-	0078	0079	-	-	"WB3 Test MPEG2"	"WB3 Test MPEG2 Channel 9829"
> "*DTV" 9830 8|00	-	0082	0083	-	-	"WB3 Test MPEG2"	"WB3 Test MPEG2 Channel 9830"
> "*DTV" 999 8|00	-	0096	0097	-	-	"WB3 Test MPEG2"	"WB3 Test MPEG2 Channel 9832"
> "*DTV" 9825 8|00	-	0050	0051	-	-	"WB3 Test MPEG2"	"WB3 Test MPEG2 Channel 9825"
> "*DTV" 9826 8|00	-	005A	005B	-	-	"WB3 Test MPEG2"	"WB3 Test MPEG2 Channel 9826"
> "*DTV" 9824 8|00	-	003C	003D	-	-	"WB3 Test MPEG2"	"WB3 Test MPEG2 Channel 9824"
> "DTV" 9512 10|00	-	03DE	03DF	-	-	"Satellite Test Channel, 110"	"Satellite C Test Channel 110"	"tv:dtv494.ch"
> "*DTV" 9885 10|00	-	0014	0015	-	-	"D5 110 Slide Ch. 9885"	"D5 110 Slide Ch. 9885"	"tv:2977.ch"
> "*DTV" 9886 10|00	-	000A	000B	-	-	"D5 110 Slide Ch. 9886"	"D5 110 Slide Ch. 9886"	"tv:2978.ch"
> "*DTV" 9889 12|00	-	000A	000B	-	-	"D5 110 Slide Ch. 9889"	"D5 110 Slide Ch. 9889"	"tv:2981.ch"


----------



## inkahauts

"evan_s" said:


> D10 is at 103. D5 is the sat currently at 110 that was due to be replaced by the canceled D13. While both sats are already pretty old the 3 conus TPs isn't the most demanding task for a sat so they can probably cover things for a while to come.
> 
> I don't think there is anything currently on 110 but I agree that we won't see any core programing, HD included, coming from there. The SL3 pretty much seals that. I am kinda surprised that they haven't put it to use for something like international programing.


My point is simply if d10 where to full on fail before they get the new birds launched, they may be able to shuffle some programing to a sat at 110. Not hd, but maybe margin programing channels. Hopefully, we will never find out.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> My point is simply if d10 where to full on fail before they get the new birds launched, they may be able to shuffle some programing to a sat at 110. Not hd, but maybe margin programing channels.


Pray you're within the margin.


----------



## evan_s

Davenlr said:


> Could they use the 3 transponders there to provide LIL spotbeams to new, small markets? Or does the satellite there/moving there, not have that capability?


As far as I know neither the existing sat or the new sat being sent there have any spotbeam capabilities. The one they are moving was used to provide locals for the east coast but they are actually conus tps.

Should d10 fail completely prematurely I'm sure DirecTV has plans in place. I don't know how much of a role the sat(s) at 110 would play in that given the fact that what ever ended up there wouldn't be available to all the customers with SL3's but when you are suddenly short a lot of bandwidth I suppose any additional bandwidth you can manage is a good thing.


----------



## inkahauts

"evan_s" said:


> As far as I know neither the existing sat or the new sat being sent there have any spotbeam capabilities. The one they are moving was used to provide locals for the east coast but they are actually conus tps.
> 
> Should d10 fail completely prematurely I'm sure DirecTV has plans in place. I don't know how much of a role the sat(s) at 110 would play in that given the fact that what ever ended up there wouldn't be available to all the customers with SL3's but when you are suddenly short a lot of bandwidth I suppose any additional bandwidth you can manage is a good thing.


I'm thinking channels like the NASA channel, and some shopping channels and other hi 300 channels. Haven't looked in a while, but if there are any Spanish channels on 101, 103, 99 they could go there temporarily too, among other things.

The sad thing is we have to wait so long for a new sat to launch.


----------



## evan_s

While you and I might not place too much value on the shopping channels I doubt they'd be moved to 110 with the limited number of subs that can get that sat. Most, if not all of them, pay Directv to carry the channel so DirecTV doesn't want them on a sat few people can get.

For the public access/edu type channels there are actually requirements that you must carry so many of them and they can't be thrown off on a sat no one can get.


----------



## LameLefty

inkahauts said:


> The sad thing is we have to wait so long for a new sat to launch.


Well it's not like you can just run down to Best Buy or Fry's and pick up a spare, you know.  They take a couple years to build once you have regulatory approval, cost on the order of a quarter of a billion dollars to build and launch, and there are only a handful of launch providers who can put it up for you. And those folks are booked up a couple years in advance anyway.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> Well it's not like you can just run down to Best Buy or Fry's and pick up a spare, you know.


Apologist rhetoric aside, construction began in Spring 2010 and launch was originally planned for Summer 2013 and was pushed out many months.

It seems like DIRECTV banked some emergency launch karma with their delayed launch last year.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> *Apologist rhetoric aside*, construction began in Spring 2010 and launch was originally planned for Summer 2013 and was pushed out many months.


Are you delusional? There was nothing either apologetic or rhetorical in my comment. Perhaps if YOU were an aerospace engineer, you might know that. As it is, you know apparently very little about the aerospace industry.


----------



## inkahauts

"LameLefty" said:


> Well it's not like you can just run down to Best Buy or Fry's and pick up a spare, you know.  They take a couple years to build once you have regulatory approval, cost on the order of a quarter of a billion dollars to build and launch, and there are only a handful of launch providers who can put it up for you. And those folks are booked up a couple years in advance anyway.


What! Why not! !rolling


----------



## inkahauts

"LameLefty" said:


> Are you delusional? There was nothing either apologetic or rhetorical in my comment. Perhaps if YOU were an aerospace engineer, you might know that. As it is, you know apparently very little about the aerospace industry.


You like asking rhetorical questions don't you?


----------



## loudo

LameLefty said:


> Well it's not like you can just run down to Best Buy or Fry's and pick up a spare, you know.  They take a couple years to build once you have regulatory approval, cost on the order of a quarter of a billion dollars to build and launch, and there are only a handful of launch providers who can put it up for you. And those folks are booked up a couple years in advance anyway.


Who knows maybe they could find one on ebay. :lol:


----------



## HarleyD

harsh said:


> Apologist rhetoric aside, construction began in Spring 2010 and launch was originally planned for Summer 2013 and was pushed out many months.
> 
> It seems like DIRECTV banked some emergency launch karma with their delayed launch last year.


So my question is why was it pushed out?

Was it of DirecTV's choosing to back off and drag their feet or is the revised launch window based on what it turned out the launch providers were able to do?

I could see the latter as more likely. DirecTV contracted the bird, SSL says they could deliver it by the end of 2012 (thus the original projected launch date of 2013) and then when they started actually shopping the launch found that the soonest they could get it scheduled was in 2014.

Pure speculation, but not improbable.


----------



## LameLefty

HarleyD said:


> So my question is why was it pushed out?
> 
> Was it of DirecTV's choosing to back off and drag their feet or is the revised launch window based on what it turned out the launch providers were able to do?
> 
> I could see the latter as more likely. DirecTV contracted the bird, SSL says they could deliver it by the end of 2012 (thus the original projected launch date of 2013) and then when they started actually shopping the launch found that the soonest they could get it scheduled was in 2014.
> 
> Pure speculation, but not improbable.


It's likely that there's no "dragging of feet" by Directv - that's just more FUD from the usual source.  After all subscriber numbers and corporate income continue to be quite positive for Directv, so there's no reason to assume a change in schedule is anything but the usual course of business with anything involving the aerospace industry (something the canine knows little about). Anyone looking to spin that negatively is just grinding an axe.

Rather, if you look at the bigger picture surrounding Directv's satellite constellation, there are lots of balls in the air from a regulatory standpoint with regard to the BSS slots (at least one of which is apparently still up for grabs among several contenders) and whether those payloads (some of them anyway) can be fitted as additional payloads to already-planned Ka satellite buses, the need to replace some of the aging Ku sats in the next several years, and balancing the cash flow necessary to expand and maintain the constellation, PLUS securing launch slots for some of these next few satellites. None of that is easy and it takes quite a bit of work to coordinate it all. Delays are not unexpected - by contrast, ANYTHING involving the space business that arrives precisely when planned after several years of effort would be a shock.


----------



## HarleyD

OK. I wouldn't have thought they were dragging their feet, just mentioning it because the projected launch date for D14 did slip by a year and I for one was disappointed to hear it.

Also, I was under the impression that the BSS payloads were a done deal and already planned for inclusion on the new birds.

From the SSL press release for D14...
Palo Alto, Calif. - June 11, 2010 - Space Systems/Loral (SS/L) today announced that it has entered into a contract to provide a high-power satellite to DIRECTV. The new satellite, DIRECTV 14, which was started earlier this quarter under an authorization to proceed, is a 20 kilowatt spacecraft that will use Ka-band *and Reverse DBS *to expand the company's video services.

And from the Astrium press release for D15 release...
Based on Astrium's highly reliable Eurostar E3000 platform, the new satellite, DIRECTV 15, will have a payload comprising 30 high power transponders in Ku-band, 24 transponders in Ka-band, *18 transponders in Reverse Band, *

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not challenging what you are saying. I just find that asking questions and presenting what my current understanding is based upon is the best way I can end up learning something.

I'm just trying to learn something.

Is it possible they've contracted for hardware on the new birds for which they don't yet have the authorization locked down or am I even more confused than I thought.

EDIT TO ADD; That D15 sucker sounds pretty loaded. Seems like it might be well positioned to pick up some of that KU attrition from the end-of-life of some of the older sats.


----------



## LameLefty

Yeah they're clearly building hybrid, multi-band satellites. However, there is still wrangling over one or more of the BSS slots (I think 95W but I might be remembering wrong - there was a big discussion over this here sometime last year or so - a search should turn up the posts if you want to look). I don't think that has ever been fully resolved but again, I could be wrong. Haven't been paying that much attention to that squabble lately. The D15 announcement is the newest and all that has been going on in the background since D14 was announced. The interesting thing about D15 is that right now, I don't think the current Directv LNBs can receive Ku from 99 or 103, nor can they receive Ka from 101. So I wonder if that means new more flexible LNBs (very expensive for 18M or so service locations) or if portions of the payload will be used differently depending on which slot the satellite ends up in (e.g. operational flexibility).

So yeah, lots of things still to shake out. I'm certain Directv has a detailed plan for all of this; it's just us - the outside interested observers - who are trying to parse it all out and make sense of the tidbits of info that sneak out over time.


----------



## HarleyD

Well the Astrium press release goes on to say that D15 "will be able to operate from up to five orbital locations from 99°W to 119°W" so it could go anywhere in there...but that also leaves 95°W out of the equation...at least for this sat.

I was thinking to myself that this may be the new "Super 101" bird capable of doing all things from one slot, not knowing it would take an LNB upgrade to utilize all three spectrums from that slot.

Although it sounds like some sort of LNB upgrade would be needed to use all three spectrums on D15 no matter what slot they put it in.


----------



## LameLefty

HarleyD said:


> Although it sounds like some sort of LNB upgrade would be needed to use all three spectrums on D15 no matter what slot they put it in.


Right, but then you have to figure in regulatory stuff. The ITU regulates which country (countries, in some cases) are allowed to broadcast from which orbital slots in which bands. For U.S. slots, the FCC allocates usage between competing providers of telecom services. For instance, Directv doesn't have a Ku license from 99 or 103, nor does it have a Ka license for direct-to-home service from 101 (I don't think - I might be wrong about that - haven't looked lately). The do have a Ka license from 101 but only for backhaul transmissions to and from their uplink centers. Then there's the new BSS (or Reverse DBS) licenses for the various orbital slots, not all of which correlate with Directv's usual arc at 99-101-103 (or even 110 or 119). Plus a set of odd-ball applications this year (filed August 9) for a (new?) Ka slot at 97W. THAT slot is also applied for by Inmarsat and Hughes, who both want to use the ITU's frequency allocations to the UK to access the U.S. market from that slot, if the FCC will allow it.

It's all pretty confusing to keep up with if it's not your full-time day job.


----------



## HarleyD

LameLefty said:


> It's all pretty confusing to keep up with if it's not your full-time day job to keep up with.


Well, I'm obviously forsaking my full-time day job right now in favor of this trivial pursuit.

I'm on vacation starting in about 50 minutes until 12/27 and not much is going to get done at this point I'm afraid. :lol:


----------



## David Ortiz

HarleyD said:


> Well the Astrium press release goes on to say that D15 "will be able to operate from up to five orbital locations from 99°W to 119°W" so it could go anywhere in there...but that also leaves 95°W out of the equation...at least for this sat.
> 
> I was thinking to myself that this may be the new "Super 101" bird capable of doing all things from one slot, not knowing it would take an LNB upgrade to utilize all three spectrums from that slot.
> 
> Although it sounds like some sort of LNB upgrade would be needed to use all three spectrums on D15 no matter what slot they put it in.


D15, with its Ku payload, seems destined to end up at 101°, as a replacement for an aging bird. At 101°, it would use its Ka and Ku capabilites. In the meantime, it could reside at 99° or 103°, making use of its Ka and Reverse band payloads. It's possible that it could displace a Ka only sat, which would go to 101°.

New LNBs are expected, as current LNBs don't receive Reverse band at all, nor Ka from 101°.


----------



## LameLefty

David Ortiz said:


> New LNBs are expected, as current LNBs don't receive Reverse band at all, nor Ka from 101°.


It's not really clear what role BSS is destined to play. Depending on the type of service(s) that bandwidth is used for, new LNBs and/or new SWiM units (to modulate the signals into the existing tuner frequency bands) could be phased in more slowly as customers opt for those specific services.

Moreover, I don't believe Directv has any intention (nor do they have a license) for Ka to the home from 101.


----------



## David Ortiz

LameLefty said:


> Moreover, I don't believe Directv has any intention (nor do they have a license) for Ka to the home from 101.


http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2838065#post2838065


----------



## LameLefty

David Ortiz said:


> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2838065#post2838065


Clever, but no license from the FCC means no service to customers. Plus Ka at 101 is already being used for back hauls. Until the FCC grants a license for Ka to the home at the 101 slot, nothing is changing on that score.


----------



## inkahauts

If directv starts using bss band for any to home signals, then lnbs will have to replaced everywhere anyway, based on some speculation. If that happens then I would expect directv to create a new lnb that can pick up any of the signal freq at any of their slots, if it's feasible and not cost prohibitive to do, knowing that that would give them the most flexibility overall.


----------



## Sixto

I changed the title of the thread earlier today, certainly with Lefty having an active role (as always) ...


----------



## evan_s

David Ortiz said:


> D15, with its Ku payload, seems destined to end up at 101°, as a replacement for an aging bird. At 101°, it would use its Ka and Ku capabilites. In the meantime, it could reside at 99° or 103°, making use of its Ka and Reverse band payloads. It's possible that it could displace a Ka only sat, which would go to 101°.
> 
> New LNBs are expected, as current LNBs don't receive Reverse band at all, nor Ka from 101°.


D15 seems to be designed to be able to work at any of DirecTV's current locations and that is really the only explanation. This gives them the most flexibility long term and for managing their fleet. Not only does DirecTV not have any where that they have licenses for all those different bands but there isn't a single spot that they use that they could get all those bands to use at a single slot. The spacing and offset of the different bands don't line up anywhere that they use. There is also no way it could end up powering all those TPs at the same time. If you look at the number of TPs using all of them would be the equivalent of 3 or 4 of their currently in orbit sats while the specs don't indicate that it is able to generate any more power than d10-d12 do.

D14 is going to 99. That much is pretty clear IMO. It should also provide an immediately available boost to channels they can provide by using the Ka High for conus, just like d12 did. Where D15 goes may depend on how D10 and the other sats are doing at that point. Replacing what ever sat is doing the worst at that point.

It might also depend on what happens with the 97 Ka license that dish had but never used. This seems like a longshot since they don't even have the license yet and once they did get the license they would have a several year timeline to actually get a sat up there. They would also need LNB swaps before they could get any use out of it for in home service.

What ever ends up happening we are definitely looking at new LNBs.


----------



## harsh

HarleyD said:


> So my question is why was it pushed out?


I suspect it had much to do with debate over what to do about D10.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> It's not really clear what role BSS is destined to play.


The mention in the license applications regarding Puerto Rico should have been a dead giveaway.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> There was nothing either apologetic or rhetorical in my comment.


Seems like the excuses were flowing like beer at a frat party. Some of them didn't make sense given the timeline and previously posted planned dates.


> Perhaps if YOU were an aerospace engineer, you might know that. As it is, you know apparently very little about the aerospace industry.


Are you a practicing aerospace engineer? If the manufacturer started construction in 2010, could they not typically finish by the end 2012? Remember that we're talking about SS/L that has a reputation for on-time or early deliveries and not Boeing.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> The mention in the license applications regarding Puerto Rico should have been a dead giveaway.


Um, no. The modification of an application to cover additional geographic doesn't really tell much about the overall use of BSS in the bigger picture. But seeing as you're a non-subscriber, I wonder why it is that you care enough to keep making these inane drive-by posts. :nono:


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> Seems like the excuses were flowing like beer at a frat party.


Only to someone looking to spread your usual brand of FUD.



> Some of them didn't make sense given the timeline and previously posted planned dates.


In your not-very-educated opinion.



> Are you a practicing aerospace engineer?


I have the degree from an ABET-accredited engineering program at an accredited university. I've worked in the aerospace industry on crewed spacecraft programs that are currently in active operation. And you? :lol:



> If the manufacturer started construction in 2010, could they not typically finish by the end 2012?


"Could", sure. Outside the rest of the uncertainties regarding the regulatory issues (which are major), operational planning (which are equally major) and launch slot availability (which is something any customer has very little control over).



> Remember that we're talking about SS/L that has a reputation for on-time or early deliveries and not Boeing.


Bashing Boeing now? SS/L has had it's share of industry black eyes - the mergers, the bankruptcies, the on-orbit satellite failures. But as an uneducated observer, I wouldn't expect you to know that either.

Just do everyone a favor and quit posting on topics you know so very little about.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> I have the degree from an ABET-accredited engineering program at an accredited university. I've worked in the aerospace industry on crewed spacecraft programs that are currently in active operation.


Is that a no on the "practicing aerospace engineer" question?


> And you?


I majored in electrical engineering but that didn't much prepare me for understanding business and regulatory decisions (or indecisions as the case may be).


> "Could", sure. Outside the rest of the uncertainties regarding the regulatory issues (which are major), operational planning (which are equally major) and launch slot availability (which is something any customer has very little control over).


As this was one of your plethora of excuses for extending the launch date, I thought I'd ask if it really had any merit.


> Bashing Boeing now?


Boeing's record as it relates to DIRECTV satellite launch delivery schedules stands by itself and likely has very little to do with the financial tribulations of its competitors.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> Um, no. The modification of an application to cover additional geographic doesn't really tell much about the overall use of BSS in the bigger picture.


As Puerto Rico is currently under the umbrella of DIRECTV LA, I suspect it has very much to do with the bigger picture of how they intend to use the BSS capabilities.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> Is that a no on the "practicing aerospace engineer" question?


My answer stands, as does my posting history here. Despite your efforts to promote yourself to the status of my _bête noire_, people who pay attention realize quickly that I know what I am talking about when I post in this thread. Unlike, say, you. 



> I majored in electrical engineering but that didn't much prepare me for understanding business and regulatory decisions (or indecisions as the case may be).


Gee, people can "major" in so many things can't they? No degree? What school? Was is ABET-accredited? Do you have any practical experience in actually DOING engineering? We know you don't actually use Directv or its related services despite your constant presence in Directv threads all over DBSTalk. How 'bout some experience in spacecraft systems design, manufacturing or test? No? Then do everyone a favor and keep your uninformative nonsense to yourself. You're polluting what should be an informative and educational thread.



> As this was one of your plethora of excuses for extending the launch date, I thought I'd ask if it really had any merit.


You're delusional. No one has made any "excuses" for anything in this thread. Then again, if you actually knew the first thing about integrated aerospace or spacecraft systems design, analysis, test and certification, you wouldn't be posting your brand of nonsense at all, would you? You might actually know more than what a quick google could tell you.

And of course, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you know next to nothing about FCC or ITU regulations and how they affect satellite design, mission planning and launch scheduling. So again, please just shut up.



> Boeing's record as it relates to DIRECTV satellite launch delivery schedules stands by itself and likely has very little to do with the financial tribulations of its competitors.


Boeing has little or nothing to do with most of this thread, except to the extent you brought it up. More FUD-fille strawmen from you - I'm SHOCKED! :lol:


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> As Puerto Rico is currently under the umbrella of DIRECTV LA, I suspect it has very much to do with the bigger picture of how they intend to use the BSS capabilities.


Please elucidate us all, then. I'm sure we'd all LOVE to hear your wisdom. Then in about 3 or 4 years when BSS satellites are in operation, we can compare your understanding _now_ with the reality _later_.

We're all waiting for your knowledge and wisdom, so do please explain.


----------



## David Ortiz

harsh said:


> As Puerto Rico is currently under the umbrella of DIRECTV LA, I suspect it has very much to do with the bigger picture of how they intend to use the BSS capabilities.





LameLefty said:


> Please elucidate us all, then. I'm sure we'd all LOVE to hear your wisdom. Then in about 3 or 4 years when BSS satellites are in operation, we can compare your understanding _now_ with the reality _later_.
> 
> We're all waiting for your knowledge and wisdom, so do please explain.


Perhaps DIRECTV simply knows that statehood for PR is imminent.


----------



## levibluewa

harsh said:


> As Puerto Rico is currently under the umbrella of DIRECTV LA, I suspect it has very much to do with the bigger picture of how they intend to use the BSS capabilities.


How do viewers in Puerto Rico get Los Angeles distant nets?


----------



## sigma1914

levibluewa said:


> How do viewers in Puerto Rico get Los Angeles distant nets?


DirecTV LA...As is Latin America not Los Angeles.


----------



## catman19jun00

I dont know if the people in these forums like direct tv because this is my firs time to this site but, with no disrespect to anyone but d tv is crap. I left comcast thinking the grass was greener but damn, no on demand, the channel guide is a nightmare, then i was supposed to have hd on my 50" on livingroom tv but they said i didnt order it, and the man that hooked it up didnt say anything when he saw the hdmi cable hanging out of the tv either, come on man what the ______? Then when i called about it they said it was too late id have to pay for the upgrade. Also no pause on the standard boxes, i could keep on all day with this. I dont know about anyone else, i had some problems with comcast, but not this many. I will be using d tv long enough to be able to go back to comcast and it will be worth paying to get out of this 2 years of missery. Sorry if i made anyone mad with what i said but i hope i help people make up there minds. Oh, the reason i found out about the hd if your wondering is they did the same thing to my friend and his mother.


----------



## Davenlr

Why didnt you just refuse the install, and reschedule it with HD? Sounds like you didnt do your homework when you ordered.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

This is the D14 Thread.

Please stay on topic.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Wonder if there will be any impact to the schedule/timeline of D14 based on the snippets of comments regarding "DirecTV tightening its belt" in the media.

I don't think so myself...but it will be interesting to see if the D14 timeline holds up.


----------



## inkahauts

I doubt those statements have anything to do with building and launching new sats. Those are long term investments that are already planned out. I think the statements of belt tightening where more on short term investment, advertising expenses, and customer acquisition spending.


----------



## LameLefty

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Wonder if there will be any impact to the schedule/timeline of D14 based on the snippets of comments regarding "DirecTV tightening its belt" in the media.
> 
> I don't think so myself...but it will be interesting to see if the D14 timeline holds up.





inkahauts said:


> I doubt those statements have anything to do with building and launching new sats. Those are long term investments that are already planned out. I think the statements of belt tightening where more on short term investment, advertising expenses, and customer acquisition spending.


Even more, I think such statements are a shot across the bow for providers like ABC-ESPN-Disney when the next round of contract negotiations open up.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Wonder if there will be any impact to the schedule/timeline of D14 based on the snippets of comments regarding "DirecTV tightening its belt" in the media.
> 
> I don't think so myself...but it will be interesting to see if the D14 timeline holds up.


well part of the plans for D14 / D15 is to replace the older sat's.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

LameLefty said:


> Even more, I think such statements are a shot across the bow for providers like ABC-ESPN-Disney when the next round of contract negotiations open up.


That was pretty much my take...more about that than anything specific to sat launches...as those are multi-year projects already in the budget and underway.


----------



## Sixto

Spectrum Five continues the quest this week (12/27) against DirecTV RB-2:http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=931388

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=931389​


----------



## inkahauts

Do they even have one sat in the air? Are they not the ones that where basically told they where a joke by the FCC previously? So DirecTV amended their power on the sat and that makes their application bad, since they should have known something that they probably could not have know definitively until they finished their testing with the bss packages they sent up with d11 and d12 which happened after their application? Seems Ridiculous.


----------



## LameLefty

inkahauts said:


> Do they even have one sat in the air? Are they not the ones that where basically told they where a joke by the FCC previously? So DirecTV amended their power on the sat and that makes their application bad, since they should have known something that they probably could not have know definitively until they finished their testing with the bss packages they sent up with d11 and d12 which happened after their application? Seems Ridiculous.


I expect the FCC to eventually tell Spectrum Five to go pound sand on this, but it will take some time to work through the bureaucracy.


----------



## doctor j

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/for...do?filing_key=-232416&ssid=-1469293323&pgid=2

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/for...do?filing_key=-232413&ssid=-1469293323&pgid=2

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/for...do?filing_key=-232395&ssid=-1469293323&pgid=2

Tried new links
Did I miss the discussion elsewhere that DIRECTV had withdrawn all 3 of their applications for the 97 KA orbital slot.

Hughes and INMARSAT HAWAII still have 3 applications each pending.

Doctor j


----------



## RAD

doctor j said:


> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number
> 
> Did I miss the discussion elsewhere that DIRECTV had withdrawn all 3 of their applications for the 97 KA orbital slot.
> 
> Hughes and INMARSAT HAWAII still have 3 applications each pending.
> 
> Doctor j


None of those links are working for me.


----------



## doctor j

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=929994

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=929995

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=929996

Try these.

Use open in new window

They worked in preview.
myibfs website : Directv as company name and sort for more recent actions.

Sorry
Doctor j


----------



## inkahauts

Am I the only one that finds it funny that they seem to have a refund process like that of say JC Pennys, and that it should take no more than 10 days? :lol:

Interesting. I suspect that they are giving up on these because they figure if they can get their core 3 spots going with ka, ku and bss they wont need any other spots. Of course, they don't have that yet, so do they know something we don't? Or had they only done that in case BSS testing proved to be futile and they would need to abandon BSS but have decided since BSS is definetly doable, they don't need the 97 any more? All interesting stuff to speculate on.


----------



## harsh

Maybe they couldn't figure out how to put two Ka feed horns so close together on a pizza-sized dish?


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN

Wat happen the directv 13 satellite


----------



## dpeters11

It was cancelled. I think it was a replacement for D5, but cancelled several years ago, before 2009 I believe.


----------



## HoTat2

dpeters11 said:


> It was cancelled. I think it was a replacement for D5, but cancelled several years ago, before 2009 I believe.


Yeah ...

DIRECTV-13 (designated call letters "S2693") was originally to be a Ku-band satellite replacement for DIRECTV-5, but was canceled by DIRECTV back in Nov. of '07 due to future interference concerns from the FCC's application grants of Ku-band "DBS tweener" slots a 114.5 (Spectrum 5) and 105.5 (to SES Americom).


----------



## skaman74

When the D14 sat is up in running will I have to get a new satellite with more lnb or will it be on a different tuner on a already using satellite.


----------



## Kevin F

It will probably be in the 103 degrees position so no new equipment will be necessary.

Kevin


----------



## LameLefty

Everything known, speculated and thought to be known about Directv 14 (and all future sats, plus anything that changes with current sats), is usually talked about here:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=179580

There's a lot of material here, but it's a good thread to subscribe to. Those of us who update it tend to pay absurdly close attention to things like FCC filings, Directv financial reports and ITU regulatory rulings. :grin:


----------



## skaman74

"LameLefty" said:


> Everything known, speculated and thought to be known about Directv 14 (and all future sats, plus anything that changes with current sats), is usually talked about here:
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=179580
> 
> There's a lot of material here, but it's a good thread to subscribe to. Those of us who update it tend to pay absurdly close attention to things like FCC filings, Directv financial reports and ITU regulatory rulings. :grin:


Thanks. Good to know


----------



## Renard

Kevin F said:


> It will probably be in the *103 degrees position* so no new equipment will be necessary.
> 
> Kevin


I think it should be in the 99 degrees position, not 103.


----------



## skaman74

And details on launch date? I couldn't find it in the other thread.


----------



## dpeters11

Very early in 2014 I believe, to the 99 slot.


----------



## Davenlr

dpeters11 said:


> Very early in 2014 I believe, to the 99 slot.


Then we will all drool for weeks as it obtains orbit, gets parked, the first signals are detected from it, the receivers finally show it on the signal screen.... Then everyone goes "Aw Crap" when they add 250 new PPV channels on it


----------



## Renard

Davenlr said:


> Then we will all drool for weeks as it obtains orbit, gets parked, *the first signals are detected from it, the receivers finally show it on the signal screen.... Then everyone goes "Aw Crap" when they add 250 new* PPV channels on it


I'd be more excited by the new signals showing up on the screen than by the new 250 PPV channels.


----------



## inkahauts

Kevin F said:


> It will probably be in the 103 degrees position so no new equipment will be necessary.
> 
> Kevin


That's not necessarily true. We don't really know yet if a new lnb will be needed, as this sat also appears to be loaded with a bss payload, and if that's used for regular national channels as well, we will likely need new lnb's and possible new swims as well. If that happens, DirecTV would have to foot the bill for that, so we will see.


----------



## skaman74

"Davenlr" said:


> Then we will all drool for weeks as it obtains orbit, gets parked, the first signals are detected from it, the receivers finally show it on the signal screen.... Then everyone goes "Aw Crap" when they add 250 new PPV channels on it


Haha so true they fill it up with more dumb ass shopping channels that nobody watched


----------



## dpeters11

Hey those shopping channels help keep our bills from going higher, and SD doesn't take a lot of bandwidth.

PPV channels can be used as placeholders as well.


----------



## Sixto

The latest on DirecTV-14 (RB-1): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=941116​
Also, minor item on DirecTV-15 (RB-2) from a while ago: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=936073​


----------



## bobnielsen

Sixto said:


> The latest on DirecTV-14 (RB-1): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=941116​
> Also, minor item on DirecTV-15 (RB-2) from a while ago: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=936073​


I'm getting blank pages on both of those links 

Edit: Clicking on the link downloaded a file which was hidden on the screen behind Firefox. Nevermind


----------



## longrider

bobnielsen said:


> I'm getting blank pages on both of those links


Viglink strikes again  I was able to get the first document (attached here) but no luck on the second


----------



## harsh

DIRECTV filing said:


> Accordingly, DIRECTV recognizes that, as contemplated under Section 25.113(f) of the Commission's rules, it is proceeding with construction of the satellite at its own risk.


Looks like they're scrambling to get the horse back in front of the cart.


----------



## HoTat2

Sixto said:


> The latest on DirecTV-14 (RB-1): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=941116​ ...





> The SS/L contract contemplates a satellite with both a 17/24 GHz BSS payload *and a Ka-band payload.* Although DIRECTV currently operates two Ka-band satellites at the nominal 99° W.L. orbital location, *it has not yet sought authorization for the Ka-band payload on this satellite. DIRECTV is in the process of finalizing various design and operational details, and intends to file an appropriate application with the Commission for such authority in the next few months.*


Oh ... so I guess that answers the question then to the strange omissions of any FCC licensing requests filings by DIRECTV for the Ka-band payload to be placed aboard D14/RB-1

They simply haven't made any yet for the reasons cited. Duh ... :lol:

It also shows D14/RB-1 is definitely destined for 99W.


----------



## Sixto

Few other interesting goodies as well ...

DirecTV Ku-79W: DIRECTV hereby applies for authority to launch and operate a geostationary Ku-band spacecraft, at the nominal 79 W.L. orbital location, which has recently become available for licensing.

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=940873​
There's also a bunch more that references 97W but the doc is 79W, I think ...

Schedule-S for 97W: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=941164​


----------



## RAD

Sixto said:


> Few other interesting goodies as well ...
> 
> DirecTV Ku-79W: DIRECTV hereby applies for authority to launch and operate a geostationary Ku-band spacecraft, at the nominal 79 W.L. orbital location, which has recently become available for licensing.
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=940873​


Sounds like they're mainly needing this for coverage in Mexico and for more HD channels in the US international packages. Can't see DIRECTV wanting to have to add 79W to the core US customer base with all the dishs that would need to be replaced.


----------



## Sixto

RAD said:


> Sounds like they're mainly needing this for coverage in Mexico and for more HD channels in the US international packages. Can't see DIRECTV wanting to have to add 79W to the core US customer base with all the dishs that would need to be replaced.


Yep, looks that way ...

It came from: INFORMATIVE

SES Americom previously operated the AMC-2 space station (Call Sign 2134) at the 78.95° W.L. orbital location using the 3700-4200 MHz (space-to-Earth), 5925-6425 MHz (Earth-to-space), 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) frequency bands and the AMC-5 space station (Call Sign S2156) at the 79.10° W. L. orbital location using the 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) frequency bands. Both space stations now operate at different orbital locations. See IBFS File Nos.SAT-MOD-20111025-00209 and SAT-STA-20111017-00205 for Call Sign S2134, and IBFS File Nos. SAT-MOD-20110929-00192 and SAT-STA-20110929-00191 for Call Sign S2156.

The frequency bands previously authorized on the AMC-2 space station (Call Sign S2134) at the 78.95° W.L. orbital location and on the AMC-5 space station (Call Sign S2156) at the 79.10° W. L. orbital location are now available for reassignment pursuant to the Commission's first-come, first-served licensing process effective 2:00 p.m. EST on Tuesday, February 28, 2012. At that time, applicants may file applications for new space stations, market access by non-U.S. licensed space stations, modifications to licensed space stations, or amendments to pending applications taking this announcement into account. Applications filed prior to this date and time will be dismissed as premature without prejudice to refiling.​


----------



## HoTat2

Sixto said:


> Few other interesting goodies as well ...
> 
> DirecTV Ku-79W: DIRECTV hereby applies for authority to launch and operate a geostationary Ku-band spacecraft, at the nominal 79 W.L. orbital location, which has recently become available for licensing.
> 
> ... Schedule-S: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=941164​
> There's also a bunch more that references 97W but the doc is 79W, I think ...


Sixto, that link to a Schedule S document is for a 48 transponder Ka-band with a solely CONUS beam bird using circular polarization.

DIRECTV KU-97W is to be a 24 transponder Ku-bander with linear polarization and Mexican and CONUS beams.


----------



## Sixto

HoTat2 said:


> Sixto, that link to a Schedule S document is for a 48 transponder Ka-band with a solely CONUS beam bird using circular polarization.
> 
> DIRECTV KU-97W is to be a 24 transponder Ku-bander with linear polarization and Mexican and CONUS beams.


Hmmm. Let me check. Been running around today, and I didn't read any of it yet, saw it, posted, and ran. Will look.


----------



## Sixto

That's the Schedule-S under 97W, not 79W. Will continue to look.


----------



## HoTat2

Sixto said:


> That's the Schedule-S under 97W, not 79W. Will continue to look.


OK,

I think that was the purposed one for a Ka-band bird at 97W discussed earlier in this thread which as since been abandoned.

Many thanks though for weeding through the confusing maze of FCC filings and posting whatever you can find on this stuff so far.


----------



## LameLefty

Our friend gct started this discussion on the 79W satellite for Mexico and Puerto Rico last week.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=202567


----------



## Sixto

LameLefty said:


> Our friend gct started this discussion on the 79W satellite for Mexico and Puerto Rico last week.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=202567


Cool. Hadn't seen that thread. Subscribed now.  Thanks.

Then really just the new RB-1 info for here.


----------



## Sixto

A little bit on BSS from last week:http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=944272​


----------



## harsh

Sixto said:


> A little bit on BSS from last week:


Easier to beg for forgiveness? Never let it be said that DIRECTV didn't rush D12.


----------



## bobnielsen

Not really forgiveness, just reflecting the _ex post facto_ status regarding the revised regulation.

I wonder if Directv is finally planning to use RB-2A for something


----------



## P Smith

IMO, it's good sign of lit it on soon.


----------



## LameLefty

Apologies in advance if the link is wonky - you know how it is with the FCC IBFS database.

Anyway, it looks like the end of the road for Directv 1R. It's been at the nominal 110ºW slot for awhile but now looks as though it will be raised to a disposal orbit in another 60 days or so.

October 1999 - July 2012 - Not a bad run for the old bird.

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number


----------



## Laxguy

LameLefty said:


> Apologies in advance if the link is wonky - you know how it is with the FCC IBFS database.
> 
> Anyway, it looks like the end of the road for Directv 1R. It's been at the nominal 110ºW slot for awhile but now looks as though it will be raised to a disposal orbit in another 60 days or so.
> 
> October 1999 - July 2012 - Not a bad run for the old bird.


Is that about average? Is it technological obsolescence or mechanical?


----------



## dpeters11

I think it was rated for a 15 year lifespan. Several years ago it was providing locals for some of the small DMAs, I don't think it was handling anything else at that time (about 2007).


----------



## TheRatPatrol

So does that mean 110 is going away, don't they share space there with Dish (or is that 119)?


----------



## LameLefty

Laxguy said:


> Is that about average? Is it technological obsolescence or mechanical?





dpeters11 said:


> I think it was rated for a 15 year lifespan.


Yep, it was designed for a 15 year _nominal_ operating life, but that is a very loosey-goosey estimate.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/601/directv1r/directv1r.html

Interestingly, buried in the technical guts of most of these FCC applications, there are statistical summaries indicating the expected lifespan of the vehicle over time. There's a non-trivial statistical likelihood of a mission-ending failure before prior to 15 years. I haven't looked for the D1R documents specifically, however.


----------



## Laxguy

Thanks, Herb. You are the only true rocket scientist I "know"! 
Perhaps there are others on the board, but none so articulate.


----------



## RAD

What's on 110 anymore for DIRECTV, I've lost track???


----------



## Davenlr

RAD said:


> What's on 110 anymore for DIRECTV, I've lost track???


The two test channels (one even, one odd)


----------



## David Ortiz

Davenlr said:


> The two test channels (one even, one odd)


Or just one. (Transponders 8, 10, 12)


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Sixto said:


> A little bit on *BSS* from last week:


Based on the tech requirements, once could make a case that there is an extra letter in the name of that document description...


----------



## LameLefty

RAD said:


> What's on 110 anymore for DIRECTV, I've lost track???





Davenlr said:


> The two test channels (one even, one odd)





David Ortiz said:


> Or just one. (Transponders 8, 10, 12)


You know, in the narrative section of the document I linked, it mentions that Directv has previously requested to move D1R to 110ºW but are now withdrawing that request. So far as I can tell, the only future use of 110 will be for the RB-4 satellite.


----------



## slimoli

Do you guys have any idea if Directv has any plans to move the foreign channels from the Galaxy and get rid of the 2nd dish ? Thanks.


----------



## harsh

Based on recent patterns, it seems like DIRECTV may be more interested in paring International channels than contemplating moving them. I seem to recall that they no longer sign people up for Greek channels.

The next satellites will give them capacity for what is available in the near future with not a lot left over.

Then again, they may just surprise me an use their non-Ku/Ka band hardware for something other than placeholders.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> YSo far as I can tell, the only future use of 110 will be for the RB-4 satellite.


That being the case, aren't they going to have to surrender their Ka licenses for that slot?


----------



## Gary Toma

Here is the May, 18, 2012 filing:

the attachment has been duplicate posted on 6/16/13, here: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/170004-directv-satellite-discussion-d14-up-next/page-35#entry3147380


----------



## P Smith

96 HD channels (8 tpns, 19.7-20.2 GHz) and lot of SB ...


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> 96 HD channels (8 tpns, 19.7-20.2 GHz) and lot of SB ...


LOA document reads it as 16 Ka-Hi Band CONUS transponders (plus AL., HI., and Puerto Rico).

Most likely to be a new "99ca."

And 8 spotbeam tps. also apparently in the Ka-Hi Band where they will either supplement or replace SW-2's spots.

So under separate FCC filings at least, I guess "DIRECTV-14" specifies the Ka Band payload, and "RB-1" the RDBS one even though they will both be on the same satellite.

Can someone with the wherewithal for navigating the FCC website post the Schedule-S for this filing?


----------



## HoTat2

Also the HD channel capacity of "96" indicates that DIRECTV has definitely moved from a 5 to 6 channel per transponder standard (96 ÷ 16 CONUS tps.). Otherwise it would have been listed as 80.


----------



## dpeters11

Also interesting for those that think most subscribers have HD. 40% of even new ones are SD only?


----------



## mreposter

Hasn't there been some speculation that D14 was going to take over for one of the older birds? If so, the total number of possible new/upgraded channels would be much more limited.


----------



## Sixto

More about DirecTV-14 from Friday:http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=952449​


----------



## TheRatPatrol

mreposter said:


> Hasn't there been some speculation that D14 was going to take over for one of the older birds? If so, the total number of possible new/upgraded channels would be much more limited.


It may take over for D10, which was having some issues, and D10 would be used as a backup or for special events, but I don't think D10 is going away.

My understanding of whats been said in the past is that D14 should be "an addition to" what they already have now.


----------



## RAD

So D14 will have the capability of providing 96 additional national HD channels. But if there's room now for adding more national HD channels but folks say they're not being added due to costs and contracts then why the need for D14?


----------



## Davenlr

Backup, more spot beams?


----------



## TheRatPatrol

"RAD" said:


> So D14 will have the capability of providing 96 additional national HD channels. But if there's room now for adding more national HD channels but folks say they're not being added due to costs and contracts then why the need for D14?


There's room now for some more HD channels, but not 96 channels. D14 will allow for D* to pretty much go full HD if they want to, and provide for 8K super HD.


----------



## Sixto

Also going with the new standard 6 HD per transponder, with the new encoders.


----------



## harsh

D10 may be going to in-orbit spare. The Net gain could be 16 CONUS HD or less with some mix of SD. In combination with other satellites going to six channels, it could get interesting once again.

The Ka transponders are so wide, it seems like they shouldn't be sacrificing much.


----------



## P Smith

harsh said:


> D10 may be going to in-orbit spare. The Net gain could be 16 CONUS HD or less with some mix of SD. In combination with other satellites going to six channels, it could get interesting once again.
> *
> The Ka transponders are so wide*, it seems like they shouldn't be sacrificing much.


Huh ? Did you read the FCC document ? Its' regular 36 MHz.


----------



## thelucky1

"RAD" said:


> So if there's room now for adding more national HD channels but folks say they're not being added due to costs and contracts then why the need for D14?


Great question RAD! Everyone seems to be avoiding the answer!


----------



## Davenlr

thelucky1 said:


> Great question RAD! Everyone seems to be avoiding the answer!


Pretty much know the answer. Why pay for/provide something that is going to cost you money, if the customers arent leaving because of the lack of its presence?

As long as new customers keep signing up, current customers keep staying, then I dont see them getting in any hurry to add those remaining 8 or 10 channels most of the other carriers have. Besides, they have the sports thing locked up.


----------



## P Smith

I thought participants of the discussion are reading FCC doc, but seems to me it not happened.



> DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC ("DIRECTV") hereby requests that the Commission authorize the launch and operation of DIRECTV 14, a geostationary Ka-band satellite1 to be located at the nominal 99° W.L. position, where it will be collocated with, and serve to replace and/or supplement the existing on-orbit capacity of, the SPACEWAY 2 and DIRECTV 11 satellites. DIRECTV 14 will operate within the Ka-band spectrum licensed to DIRECTV at the 99° W.L. slot. The capabilities of this satellite will be carefully integrated with those of DIRECTV's existing on-orbit Ka-band satellites at the nominal 99° W.L. orbital location in order to optimize the efficient use of valuable spectrum resources at that location and to incorporate redundancy to DIRECTV's high definition ("HD") programming operations.





> DIRECTV 14 will be used to further expand DIRECTV's capability to provide HD services to American consumers. The satellite is fully compliant with Commission rules relating to Ka-band blanket earth station licensing.4 Its operations will be carefully integrated with those of DIRECTV's existing on-orbit Ka-band satellites at the nominal 99° W.L. orbital location in order to optimize the efficient use of valuable spectrum resources at that location and to incorporate redundancy to DIRECTV's HD operations. Combined with the SPACEWAY 2 and DIRECTV 11 satellites operating at 99° W.L., this satellite will give DIRECTV the ability to broadcast an additional ninety six channels of national HD programming. The satellite will also be capable of supporting forty-six spot beams that will allow DIRECTV to expand its current HD local-into-local service and enhance HD service into Hawaii and Puerto Rico.





> DIRECTV 14 is designed to provide DTH service in the FSS Ka-band (19.7-20.2 GHz (space-to-earth) and 29.5-30.0 GHz (Earth-to-space))... DIRECTV hereby applies for authority to launch and operate DIRECTV 14, a Ka-band satellite that will provide DIRECTV with the capability to add approximately ninety six additional channels of national HD programming to DIRECTV's capabilities and also provide additional HD local-into local capability.





> The DIRECTV 14 satellite is capable of supporting sixteen Ka-band transponders (eight LHCP and eight RHCP) providing national channels and eight Ka-band transponders (four LHCP and four RHCP) providing local-into-local transmissions. The national channels will be delivered to the 48 contiguous states (CONUS) plus Alaska,Hawaii and Puerto Rico and will carry national HD programming material. DIRECTV 14 will also carry local programming material to a number of designated market areas and Puerto Rico.





> Using this combination of uplink facilities, the DIRECTV 14 system, operating in concert with DIRECTV's other Ka-band assets, will be capable of transmitting approximately 96 additional national channels of HD programming and will provide local-into-local capabilities in 69 designated market areas ("DMAs") and Puerto Rico.





> The national coverage downlink beam uses dual combined output amplifiers ("TWTAs") with a per amplifier output power of 130 Watts (i.e., 260 Watts combined). The spot downlink beams use single amplifier TWTAs with an output power of 70 Watts or 130 Watts.





> The national coverage for DIRECTV 14 will include CONUS plus Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico using both RHCP and LHCP. In addition to this national coverage, DIRECTV 14 has forty-six spot beams that will carry local-into-local HD programming material to 69 DMAs and Puerto Rico.





> DIRECTV anticipates that Space Systems/Loral will complete construction of DIRECTV 14 in the fourth quarter of 2013 and that the satellite will be launched by the end of that year or in early 2014.


----------



## thelucky1

"Davenlr" said:


> Pretty much know the answer. Why pay for/provide something that is going to cost you money, if the customers arent leaving because of the lack of its presence?
> 
> As long as new customers keep signing up, current customers keep staying, then I dont see them getting in any hurry to add those remaining 8 or 10 channels most of the other carriers have. Besides, they have the sports thing


----------



## mreposter

It takes years to build, test, launch and enable a satellite. Directv has to plan 3-5 years out for these things. D14 has been in development for several years and won't even be in service to customers for another 2 years. 

If Directv waits until they have a capacity problem it'll be too late to get a bird up and operational. With the age of the existing sats, the coming explosion of RSNs, potential new technologies, etc, etc, it makes perfect sense for D14 to be launched.


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> Huh ? Did you read the FCC document ? Its' regular 36 MHz.


Regular is a relative measure.

Regular for the Ku band is 24MHz with 35 guard bands. 50% more is a lot even if you have to pump up the FEC. If you lose it all to FEC, then I understand why RDBS is so important for the somewhat distant future.


----------



## P Smith

Have you seen docs for D10/D11/D12 ? D14 has the same Ka tpns. You should start here, not from Ku.


----------



## doctor j

HoTat2 said:


> LOA document reads it as 16 Ka-Hi Band CONUS transponders (plus AL., HI., and Puerto Rico).
> 
> Can someone with the wherewithal for navigating the FCC website post the Schedule-S for this filing?


The important info is in the Schedule S!!

Can anyone post the schedule S or the link to the IBFS filing and I'll see if I can decifer it.

Doctor j


----------



## Sixto

It's not in PDF format, otherwise would have posted as usual Will post a link when I get near a PC.


----------



## Sixto

Sixto said:


> It's not in PDF format, otherwise would have posted as usual Will post a link when I get near a PC.


Here you go:http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...acct=624514&id_form_num=12&filing_key=-242222​


----------



## doctor j

Sixto said:


> Here you go:http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...acct=624514&id_form_num=12&filing_key=-242222​


Thank you.
There usually are two reports to review.
One TXT/PDF and the other an MS Access file of gps co-ordinates of the "beams".
Only the Access file is available.
I'll need some help but try to see how complete the data is ie "All" of the spotbeams or just a few samples as they frequently do. The D-10 Data was the full 49 spots and the most complete data we have available.

Doctor j


----------



## P Smith

I found in Exhibit B:


> First, DIRECTV has found that the Schedule S software is unable to accommodate .gxt files for the number of beams on a satellite such as DIRECTV 14. Accordingly, as it has done in previous cases, DIRECTV will submit the .gxt files directly to the International Bureau staff in a GIMS container database file for inclusion in the record with the other materials supporting this application.


----------



## doctor j

P Smith said:


> I found in Exhibit B:


RATS
That may well explain why the "Beam Points" are not available in the file.
Data error messages come up trying to read the file. The individual GXT files have the beam points I believe.

I did see that there are 76 TPN's available in the 46 Spotbeams.
Spots are A01 to A22 and B01 to B24.
Most are 2 TPN's per beam (26) but two A06 and A08 have 3 TPN's and 18 including A21 & A22 as well as B21 thru B24 have only 1 TPN

Also 16 National TPN #9 thru 24.
These 16 are replicated twice, once in Hawaii Beam and again in the Puerto Rico Beam.

Doctor j


----------



## inkahauts

"TheRatPatrol" said:


> There's room now for some more HD channels, but not 96 channels. D14 will allow for D* to pretty much go full HD if they want to, and provide for 8K super HD.


And don't forget the d15 is already being planned as well, right? In fact, is it two or three satelites in the pipeline?

I wonder how hesitant DIRECTV is aout adding too much more Hi Definition incase d10 completely fails, both local and national. And what will their plans be when they do get d14 up? Will they launch more lil which may be their biggest area of need for a new sat?


----------



## dpeters11

I believe 15 is supposed to launch at the end of 2014. They do need to get these up there in case 10 does fail. Since it's running on backup propulsion, they accelerated the schedule.


----------



## inkahauts

"doctor j" said:


> RATS
> That may well explain why the "Beam Points" are not available in the file.
> Data error messages come up trying to read the file. The individual GXT files have the beam points I believe.
> 
> I did see that there are 76 TPN's available in the 46 Spotbeams.
> Spots are A01 to A22 and B01 to B24.
> Most are 2 TPN's per beam (26) but two A06 and A08 have 3 TPN's and 18 including A21 & A22 as well as B21 thru B24 have only 1 TPN
> 
> Also 16 National TPN #9 thru 24.
> These 16 are replicated twice, once in Hawaii Beam and again in the Puerto Rico Beam.
> 
> Doctor j


So are you saying the spots with three tpns are the ones pointed at puerto Rico and Hawaii? Or are they probably so they can be pointed at the areas with the largest number of channels, or maybe simply the biggest dmas that may carry more channels overall because they are so spread out, like say Utah?


----------



## inkahauts

"dpeters11" said:


> I believe 15 is supposed to launch at the end of 2014. They do need to get these up there in case 10 does fail. Since it's running on backup propulsion, they accelerated the schedule.


I also have to endear if they aren't going to be using d15 to replace a sat or two at 101. They are getting kind of old up there too I believe. It seems d14 can easily replace d10 and add quite a bit more capacity, knowing its not using spots and that DIRECTV has upgraded their ability to have six channels instead of five per tpn.


----------



## HoTat2

doctor j said:


> RATS
> That may well explain why the "Beam Points" are not available in the file.
> Data error messages come up trying to read the file. The individual GXT files have the beam points I believe.
> 
> I did see that there are 76 TPN's available in the 46 Spotbeams.
> Spots are A01 to A22 and B01 to B24.
> Most are 2 TPN's per beam (26) but two A06 and A08 have 3 TPN's and 18 including A21 & A22 as well as B21 thru B24 have only 1 TPN ...


You think the "A" and "B" groupings for the spotbeams likely imply only two spotbeam antennas with 22 and 24 beams respectively as opposed to the four used by the Ka B-Band payloads for LiLs on D10, 11, and 12?

And apparently D14 will receive from only four of the main six uplink sites.

S1 - LABC
S2 - Castle Rock
S3 - SWUF (near Tucson Ariz.)
S4 - NWUF (Moxee WA.)

Also, I guess the 46 spots do not include a dedicated Hawaii beam labeled "C01" on a third separate dish perhaps? I see as well that Hawaii has no local spotbeam transponders included in this payload. Only a mirror for the National tps.

Whereas Puerto Rico appears to have two LiL tps. in addition to a National mirror. One each for two spotbeams assigned to PR. One beam ("B24") carries odd channels and the other ("B23") even.



> ... Also 16 National TPN #9 thru 24.
> These 16 are replicated twice, once in Hawaii Beam and again in the Puerto Rico Beam.
> 
> Doctor j


I wonder if this is actually three separate, yet redundant sets of 16 transponders for CONUS, HI., and PR all receiving the same National programming uplinked from the LABC ("S1")?


----------



## TheRatPatrol

inkahauts said:


> I also have to endear if they aren't going to be using d15 to replace a sat or two at 101.


Wouldn't they need to change out LNB's if they did that?


----------



## LameLefty

TheRatPatrol said:


> Wouldn't they need to change out LNB's if they did that?


Probably so. More problematically, if they intend to broadcast Ka band _to customers_ they would need to also get FCC approval. Right now, as I understand things, Directv's Ka license only allows them to broadcast from there to their own receiver stations for signal backhauls.


----------



## inkahauts

Why couldn't they simply make the ka band transponders ku band? We know they have made changes to the frequencies of tpns before they where launched before from what we expected, and we have yet to see any real filings of technical data on d15 yet. 

I was simply speculating that may happen after a successful launch of d14 to orbit and service. If it doesn't make it to orbit and service, then I would see d15 as a replacement to d14... They can wait to set or install tpns till they know if d14 is successful, can't they? Just like they did with d12?


----------



## LameLefty

inkahauts said:


> Why couldn't they simply make the ka band transponders ku band? We know they have made changes to the frequencies of tpns before they where launched before from what we expected, and we have yet to see any real filings of technical data on d15 yet.
> 
> I was simply speculating that may happen after a successful launch of d14 to orbit and service. If it doesn't make it to orbit and service, then I would see d15 as a replacement to d14... They can wait to set or install tpns till they know if d14 is successful, can't they? Just like they did with d12?


Nope, not really. Every single satellite vehicle is a specific "space station" in FCC terms and requires specific licensing authority to operate. The license for the satellite specifies the RF payload that the satellite is allowed to operate.


----------



## P Smith

inkahauts said:


> Why couldn't they simply make the ka band transponders ku band? ...


By law of physics - dimensions of RF guides/tubes are different for Ka and Ku freqs.


----------



## LameLefty

P Smith said:


> By law of physics - dimensions of RF guides/tubes are different for Ka and Ku freqs.


Changing physical transponder hardware is the least of the issues. FCC approval is far more important and harder to accomplish.


----------



## Gary Toma

For those interested, the beam footprints for all 47 D14 Beams are published and available here at DBSTALK at the Tips & Resources Forum, in the Beam Footprint Library thread.

These are all interactive displays which require that you have the GoogleEarth application. Details are all in the Footprint Library thread.


----------



## doctor j

gct said:


> For those interested, the beam footprints for all 47 D14 Beams are published and available here at DBSTALK at the Tips & Resources Forum, in the Beam Footprint Library thread.
> 
> These are all interactive displays which require that you have the GoogleEarth application. Details are all in the Footprint Library thread.


GREAT WORK!!
Thanks to spears61 for his expertise in this area.

Just a shame we have to wait 18 months. I'm so impatient!!

Doctor j


----------



## HoTat2

Yes ... great work indeed;

Though the Puerto Rico spotbeam assignment is a little confusing with the MS database reading it as if there will be two separate beams "B23" (LHCP or even channels ) and "B24" (RHCP or odd channels).

And spears61 list which has it as a single SB, "B23LR," to carry both L/RHCP channels on the same beam which like the Hawaii SB "CO1" makes more sense of course than having two overlapping spots for L/RHCP channel sets. But still confusing.


----------



## Carolina

Did they skip D13 because they were afraid of bad luck? :lol: I have heard of building that don't have a floor called the 13th floor. They jump the numbers from 12 to 14.


----------



## dpeters11

"Carolina" said:


> Did they skip D13 because they were afraid of bad luck? :lol: I have heard of building that don't have a floor called the 13th floor. They jump the numbers from 12 to 14.


D13 was a replacement for 5, but was cancelled.


----------



## P Smith

Carolina said:


> Did they skip D13 because they were afraid of bad luck? :lol: I have heard of building that don't have a floor called the 13th floor. They jump the numbers from 12 to 14.


It was 7th times when the same question asked here, in the thread. :lol:
First time it was : http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2856312&highlight=d13#post2856312

Perhaps It should be sticky at top of the thread ?


----------



## inkahauts

"LameLefty" said:


> Nope, not really. Every single satellite vehicle is a specific "space station" in FCC terms and requires specific licensing authority to operate. The license for the satellite specifies the RF payload that the satellite is allowed to operate.


Maybe I wasn't clear. I am saying if d14 is successful, who's to say they don't get approval to and setup d15 to be used at 101 and replace one or more of the aging satelites at that location?n they haven't asked for any authorization for that sat yet have they?


----------



## LameLefty

inkahauts said:


> Maybe I wasn't clear. I am saying if d14 is successful, who's to say they don't get approval to and setup d15 to be used at 101 and replace one or more of the aging satelites at that location?n they haven't asked for any authorization for that sat yet have they?


Yeah, they might do that. As far as I recall, there have been no public FCC filings about D15 yet. There was an investor presentation a year or so ago showing the estimated lifespan of the satellite fleet and yeah, there will need to be some vehicles in the pipeline to replace the Ku birds at 101. I suspect, however, they we may not see FCC documents about them until they are well underway. Approval to replace existing satellites in a slot and bandwidth segment for which they already have an operating license is probably pretty pro forma.


----------



## Sixto

More on the Spectrum battle, hopefully over now:http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=953571​


----------



## Davenlr

Sixto said:


> More on the Spectrum battle, hopefully over now:http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=953571​


Sure is a long document to tell the Netherlands to take their satellite and shove it


----------



## bjlc

do we actually have a launch date time frame? is it this year? or next.. Its been a real long time since we got the last satellite..


----------



## bobnielsen

bjlc said:


> do we actually have a launch date time frame? is it this year? or next.. Its been a real long time since we got the last satellite..


If you look through the thread, you can find an estimate of late 2013 for D14.


----------



## HoTat2

bobnielsen said:


> If you look through the thread, you can find an estimate of late 2013 for D14.


The LOA document actually states a launch window of late 2013 to early 2014;

From the PDF:

"DIRECTV anticipates that Space Systems/Loral will complete construction of DIRECTV 14 in the fourth quarter of 2013 and that the satellite will be launched by the end of that year or in early 2014."


----------



## dpeters11

Well, there has to be some leeway for weather and such. Not sure if there are launch windows.


----------



## LameLefty

bobnielsen said:


> If you look through the thread, you can find an estimate of late 2013 for D14.





HoTat2 said:


> The LOA document actually states a launch window of late 2013 to early 2014;
> 
> From the PDF:
> 
> "DIRECTV anticipates that Space Systems/Loral will complete construction of DIRECTV 14 in the fourth quarter of 2013 and that the satellite will be launched by the end of that year or in early 2014."





dpeters11 said:


> Well, there has to be some leeway for weather and such. Not sure if there are launch windows.


Well there are launch windows but that's more due to the availability of the launch range assets (exclusionary zones and tracking assets, plus the personnel and crews to operate the equipment and enforce the keep-out areas downrange) and orbital operations and tracking personnel availability. Not to mention the biggest "window" of them all, which is the availability of a launch vehicle. That depends mostly on the launch operator chosen. Both Directv 14 and Directv 15 will fly on Ariane V rockets from Kourou, French Guiana.

http://www.arianespace.com/news-press-release/2011/9-13-2011-directv.asp


----------



## dpeters11

Thanks. I figured since it was going to the type of orbit they use, that the launch windows weren't quite as complicated that NASA can end up with when they have to intercept an object, or hit a particular sequence of planets.


----------



## LameLefty

Of some interest to the future of the Directv satellite constellation, Space Systems/Loral (SS/L) is being acquired by the Canadian firm MDA. Shouldn't affect things really, but some of us do like to follow the major comings and goings in the aerospace industry.

http://spaceref.biz/2012/06/space-systems-loral-acquired-by-canadas-mda-in-blockbuster-deal.html


----------



## Sixto

Also was some earth station items last week.

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number​
"DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC requests authority to license a new earth station to communicate with DIRECTV's Ka-band satellites."

"DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC requests authority to operate a new DBS earth station at its Virginica facility."


----------



## dpeters11

I hope the FCC aren't sticklers for typos.


----------



## HoTat2

dpeters11 said:


> I hope the FCC aren't sticklers for typos.


Yeah ...;

Unless there's a state of "Virginica" no one knows about.


----------



## yosoyellobo

One of my nieces lives their.


----------



## HoTat2

With all the emphasis on HD and their associated uplink facilities, I'd practically forgotten about the ECUF in Virgina. 

Which I assume stands for "East Coast Uplink Facility," and is primarily at least for SD Ku spotbeam locals to my knowledge.


----------



## inkahauts

"LameLefty" said:


> Of some interest to the future of the Directv satellite constellation, Space Systems/Loral (SS/L) is being acquired by the Canadian firm MDA. Shouldn't affect things really, but some of us do like to follow the major comings and goings in the aerospace industry.
> 
> http://spaceref.biz/2012/06/space-systems-loral-acquired-by-canadas-mda-in-blockbuster-deal.html


In that same realm, I noticed that sea launch had a successful launch a few weeks ago and is back up and running again. That may be even more important, as it adds another launch provider location.


----------



## P Smith

inkahauts said:


> In that same realm, I noticed that sea launch had a successful launch a few weeks ago and is back up and running again. That may be even more important, as it adds another launch provider location.


See a thread http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=3027433&postcount=4


----------



## LameLefty

inkahauts said:


> In that same realm, I noticed that sea launch had a successful launch a few weeks ago and is back up and running again. That may be even more important, as it adds another launch provider location.


Yeah, their return to operations has been long, convoluted and involved a partial change of ownership. They're not currently in the loop for any announced Directv launches, however.


----------



## maartena

HoTat2 said:


> The LOA document actually states a launch window of late 2013 to early 2014;
> 
> From the PDF:
> 
> "DIRECTV anticipates that Space Systems/Loral will complete construction of DIRECTV 14 in the fourth quarter of 2013 and that the satellite will be launched by the end of that year or in early 2014."


But there is more to it than that.... Satellites do not carry a lot of fuel like the Soyuz or Progress that goes to the IIS. When it reaches orbit, it will get a small burst, a "nudge" that will bring it into an orbit that will increase with each time the satellite orbits. It will do this for many weeks, until it reaches the desired orbital height. Once there, the engines will be used to "park" it at a geo-stationary orbit.

The reason this takes time, again, is because of fuel constraints, and breaking in space costs just as much fuel as accelerating.

To get an idea how long it took for D12: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV-12

In short, you probably won't see any channels on the new D14 satellite until some 4 to 6 months after its initial launch. VERY best case scenario, and builders keep their target date, the weather hold up for the first available launch opportunity, and testing goes very smoothly and quick..... you may see channels pop up on D14 some time in spring 2014. But more realistically, I would not bet on seeing anything till the summer of 2014.

That is of course, there isn't a (big) problem with the launch.... in which case we'll have to wait till D15..


----------



## inkahauts

"LameLefty" said:


> Yeah, their return to operations has been long, convoluted and involved a partial change of ownership. They're not currently in the loop for any announced Directv launches, however.


Yeah, it looks like they are now owned by one of the other land based launch systems so if something fell behind somewhere, I have to wonder if they could push some to sea launch to keep launches going. Don't think that wood have any impact n DIRECTV next launches... Of course I know that's not something that can happen quickly, but the more launchers the better IMHO for the overall industry.


----------



## P Smith

Changing launchers could be done in 6 months in advance ...


----------



## HoTat2

maartena said:


> But there is more to it than that.... Satellites do not carry a lot of fuel like the Soyuz or Progress that goes to the IIS. When it reaches orbit, it will get a small burst, a "nudge" that will bring it into an orbit that will increase with each time the satellite orbits. It will do this for many weeks, until it reaches the desired orbital height. Once there, the engines will be used to "park" it at a geo-stationary orbit.
> 
> The reason this takes time, again, is because of fuel constraints, and breaking in space costs just as much fuel as accelerating.
> 
> To get an idea how long it took for D12: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV-12
> 
> In short, you probably won't see any channels on the new D14 satellite until some 4 to 6 months after its initial launch. VERY best case scenario, and builders keep their target date, the weather hold up for the first available launch opportunity, and testing goes very smoothly and quick..... you may see channels pop up on D14 some time in spring 2014. But more realistically, I would not bet on seeing anything till the summer of 2014.
> 
> That is of course, there isn't a (big) problem with the launch.... in which case we'll have to wait till D15..


Oh sure, I never said there wasn't a lot to be done post launch. There's orbit raising, in orbit testing, transfer to its operational slot, more testing again after arrival, etc. all which must be successfully accomplished before D14/RB-1 is formally placed into service.

I was just referring to prospective window for the actual launch date as anywhere from late 2013 early 2014.

Not of all the processes which follow it.


----------



## LameLefty

maartena said:


> To get an idea how long it took for D12: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV-12


Bear in mind, however, that D12 (and D10 before it) was launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome on a Proton rocket. Launching to an equatorial orbit from such a high latitude takes a LOT more time (and generally a lot more fuel) than launching from an equatorial site, as was done for D11 (SeaLaunch) and will be done for the next few Directv launched with Arianespace. So although testing and checkout will still require extensive work, orbit raising and circularizing won't take nearly as long.


----------



## Sixto

6/29/2012:DIRECTV hereby requests an extension of its STA for up to 60 days to continue to stationkeep the DIRECTV 1R spacecraft at the BSS slot allocated to the US at 109.8 W.L. and to perform TT&C operations with DIRECTV 1R during this period.

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=957792

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number​


----------



## HoTat2

Sixto said:


> 6/29/2012:DIRECTV hereby requests an extension of its STA for up to 60 days to continue to stationkeep the DIRECTV 1R spacecraft at the BSS slot allocated to the US at 109.8 W.L. and to perform TT&C operations with DIRECTV 1R during this period.
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=957792
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number​


Hey, I guess the old gal is going to get a new lease on life. Though maybe with someone else and for some other service.

It was supposed to be headed for disposal first reported here back in early May.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=204856


----------



## Sixto

They (Spectrum) certainly don't give up easily:http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=958639​


----------



## bobnielsen

Sixto said:


> They (Spectrum) certainly don't give up easily:http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=958639​


A perfect example of :beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Studioj

I've seen people talking about call centers for DirecTV and where they're located. I just called to find out about the loss of the Viacom channels and talked to a rep in Mexico. I asked "where are you located" and he said Mexico. I asked to talk to someone in the U.S. and he said he couldn't help me. I hung up and then called back and got a rep in Utah. He said he didn't even know DirecTV had call centers for the U.S. in Mexico. I've been with DirecTV since 1999 and have always talked to someone in the U.S. when calling customer service until now. When I pay my $160 a month (not including Sunday Ticket) it's nice to know that DirecTV is doing all they can to keep my bill "low" by exporting jobs to Mexico!!! God Bless the USA!!!!


----------



## HarleyD

Studioj said:


> I've seen people talking about call centers for DirecTV and where they're located. I just called to find out about the loss of the Viacom channels and talked to a rep in Mexico. I asked "where are you located" and he said Mexico. I asked to talk to someone in the U.S. and he said he couldn't help me. I hung up and then called back and got a rep in Utah. He said he didn't even know DirecTV had call centers for the U.S. in Mexico. I've been with DirecTV since 1999 and have always talked to someone in the U.S. when calling customer service until now. When I pay my $160 a month (not including Sunday Ticket) it's nice to know that DirecTV is doing all they can to keep my bill "low" by exporting jobs to Mexico!!! God Bless the USA!!!!


You joined just to express this?

I'm not sure that there is a forum where this "belongs" but it definitely doesn't belong in this thread. This is for discussing the actual satellites themselves.

Welcome to dbstalk.


----------



## inkahauts

"Studioj" said:


> I've seen people talking about call centers for DirecTV and where they're located. I just called to find out about the loss of the Viacom channels and talked to a rep in Mexico. I asked "where are you located" and he said Mexico. I asked to talk to someone in the U.S. and he said he couldn't help me. I hung up and then called back and got a rep in Utah. He said he didn't even know DirecTV had call centers for the U.S. in Mexico. I've been with DirecTV since 1999 and have always talked to someone in the U.S. when calling customer service until now. When I pay my $160 a month (not including Sunday Ticket) it's nice to know that DirecTV is doing all they can to keep my bill "low" by exporting jobs to Mexico!!! God Bless the USA!!!!


I wonder if they are getting s Mary calls they are having their Mexico call centers help out with its us operations so you don't have to wait extra long on to get through to someone. Would seem a bit odd though, since I doubt they'd be trained on the particulars of us dtv operations. I had never heard of them having call centers there either. Are you sure he didn't say new Mexico?

Edit: just realized what thread this is in. Not really the right place for it...


----------



## Sixto

Sixto said:


> They (Spectrum) certainly don't give up easily:http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=958639​


And DirecTV's response: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=959705


----------



## Sixto

Sixto said:


> And DirecTV's response: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=959705


And Spectrum's reply to DirecTV's reply:http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=961229​


----------



## cypherx

Really what's in it for Spectrum 5? I never heard of them. How much is Charlie paying them?


----------



## James Long

cypherx said:


> Really what's in it for Spectrum 5? I never heard of them. How much is Charlie paying them?


Not Charlie. Spectrum 5 has gone up against DISH's plans as well. They are the reason why DISH cannot get the final two transponders at 61.5. Gotta leave the door open for "new entrants".


----------



## HoTat2

DIRECTV request D1R's transfer to the "Russian Satellite Communication Company." (RSCC) at 56.16 EL to aid a failing DBS satellite there, "Bonum I," until its delayed new replacement "Express-AT1" is ready for service late next year.

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=963866

STA Request for TT&C for move from 109.8 WL to 56.16 EL

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=957792


----------



## Sixto

Thanks for posting. Saw that last week, then forgot to post. Thx.


----------



## P Smith

Posted in own thread ... http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=204856&highlight=d1r
Doesn't fit into the topic, thought. It's old sat, ready to deorbiting.


----------



## LameLefty

"P Smith" said:


> Posted in own thread ... http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=204856&highlight=d1r
> Doesn't fit into the topic, thought. It's old sat, ready to deorbiting.


It fits the topic just fine: "Directv Satellite Discussion."


----------



## Sixto

The latest on D1R: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3084003#post3084003​


----------



## alnielsen

DARPA wants to make use of dead geosynchronous satellites.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/how-catch-tumbling-aging-satellite


----------



## bobnielsen

alnielsen said:


> DARPA wants to make use of dead geosynchronous satellites.
> http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/how-catch-tumbling-aging-satellite


I remember back when the Space Shuttle was in the planning stages, there was interesting in using it to retrieve dead sats. Of course it ended up not being able to reach geosyncronous altitudes, but Hughes was asked by NASA to propose what testing might be done if one could be recovered.


----------



## P Smith

It would be highly troublesome - a couple things would be very considerable: huge solar panels what probably used one time deployment mechanism with lifetime locks/latches and big antennas ; adding to that - each satellite would be required unique 'bed' and holding 'straps' to safely bring it back to Earth ...


----------



## LameLefty

The whole idea of reusing or harvesting dead satellites, whether in GSO or even LEO, is just pie in the sky dreaming for the current generation (and probably the next two or three). Aerospace engineering is always a cutting-edge compromise between terrifically high energy requirements and very low mass-margins. It takes a LOT of energy to accelerate something to orbit in the first place. So even launching the simplest LEO satellite is on the order of several millions of dollars, unless it's a very minimal "microsat" hitching a ride up using excess capacity on a launcher for another payload. GSO launches are substantially more - in the range of a hundred million dollars or more, exclusive of the cost of the satellite. And once in orbit, every maneuver costs fuel, more of that precious, expensive launch mass you're paying so much to accelerate up to such high speeds.

Bringing anything down means the reverse: all that energy you've added to the system has to be depleted, either by using a lot of fuel to slow down quickly, or by sliding through the friction of the atmosphere (which creates heat on the order of several thousand degrees over 20 - 30 minutes of entry. That means you need a heat shield - more mass that is useless in orbit until you need it to return. There's been work done on inflatable heat shields. Perhaps one could tele-operate a harvester to clip off the deployed antennas and solar arrays, then strap the hulk to a module with a deployable heat shield and parachute array - but what's the point? The components will be old and obsolescent at best. The real costs of a satellite are in design and construction labor, not the materials. That, plus the expense of the launch, which you'd have to re-incur even if you could retrieve and refurbish the satellite in the first place. And those large PV arrays and antennas, cut free and floating up above GSO in the graveyard orbit, will be harder to track and avoid than a single, intact dead satellite.

If launch costs were a fraction of what they are today, the whole idea might make some kind sense but as it is, it's just a blue-sky brainstorming project.


----------



## Laxguy

So these dang things have the same defect of iPads and iPhones: no user replaceable batteries.....


----------



## P Smith

Perhaps in distant future it will be solved by other way: design and build satellites as serviceable (to replace blocks/modules at its orbit or at lowered altitude) and create a fleet and a crew for such missions (at least at LEO - 500 km, Hubble proved the concept).
Original idea above - robots for execute such tasks is too early, before man will get all the knowledge of fixing in a space, it would be baby game.


----------



## RAD

bobnielsen said:


> I remember back when the Space Shuttle was in the planning stages, there was interesting in using it to retrieve dead sats. Of course it ended up not being able to reach geosyncronous altitudes, but Hughes was asked by NASA to propose what testing might be done if one could be recovered.


It did retreive one satellite that was in LEO, http://www.sattel.com/life_of_palapa_b2.htm .


----------



## LameLefty

P Smith said:


> Perhaps in distant future it will be solved by other way: design and build satellites as serviceable (to replace blocks/modules at its orbit or at lowered altitude) and create a fleet and a crew for such missions (at least at LEO - 500 km, Habble proved the concept).
> Original idea above - robots for execute such tasks is too early, before man will get all the knowledge of fixing in a space, it would be baby game.


In theory, that's a fine concept. But Hubble (not "Habble") was only serviced a bare handful of times over its 22+ years in service, and almost certainly won't be serviced again (due to the retirement of the Shuttle). Each of those missions cost in the ballpark of half a billion dollars, and several of them had some kind of issue or glitch that a robotic servicing satellites wouldn't be able to handle: stuck fasteners, a service door that wouldn't close and latch correctly, etc. One mission even did almost depot-level repair of a component never intended to be replaced at all that had to be repaired using techniques and tools not considered when the spacecraft was designed.

Adding in "on-orbit serviceability" is a major design requirement, one that pushes all sorts of things in many ways: components need to be larger and have handles or tether attach points. They have to have connectors and clamps between them and the spacecraft bus that are large enough that they can be manipulated by gloved astronaut hands or robotic grips and tools. They components have to have clearances around them on all sides so they can be removed and replaced. The areas inside the spacecraft where people or robots are doing work have to easily seen by eyes or cameras and have sufficient lighting without deep shadows so that the crew of tele-operators on the ground can tell what they're doing. Those areas also must be free of static and shock hazards, sharp edges (for crewed servicing), and with the service door open, they must be designed for exposure to blackbody darkness of deep space or the solar flux of direct sunlight, which will affect the thermal environment inside.

All of those requirements mean the spacecraft itself is bigger, heavier and therefore costs more to launch. It's also functionally more complicated with more interfaces and points of failure, which makes it more expensive to design and validate, and can increase mission risks overall.

So yeah, "far future" indeed, especially up in GSO or higher in a graveyard orbit. None of these ideas are trivial.


----------



## maartena

bobnielsen said:


> I remember back when the Space Shuttle was in the planning stages, there was interesting in using it to retrieve dead sats. Of course it ended up not being able to reach geosyncronous altitudes, but Hughes was asked by NASA to propose what testing might be done if one could be recovered.


They did do some pick-ups in lower orbit though, as well as grab and repair existing satellites. Without the Space Shuttle, the mathematical error made in the design of the Hubble Space Telescope would not have been able to be fixed, and we would have never seen the amazing images it has been giving us for well over 10 years.

I know the space shuttle has aged and needed to be retired.... but we have lost some capabilities we won't get back with the current development for new crewed space ships, which are focused on the IIS, landing on the moon/asteroid, and moving on to mars eventually.

Robotic "satellite grab" missions could be done. It's the getting it back to earth without burning up that is tricky.


----------



## LameLefty

maartena said:


> They did do some pick-ups in lower orbit though, as well as grab and repair existing satellites. Without the Space Shuttle, the mathematical error made in the design of the Hubble Space Telescope would not have been able to be fixed, and we would have never seen the amazing images it has been giving us for well over 10 years.


That's true. As far as it goes.

But remember, the reason Hubble's main mirror was launched with that aberration in the first place is that the prime contractor and optics subcontractor nixed end-to-end testing of the optical path as a way to deal with the inevitable cost overruns experienced by space programs. Full-up testing would've revealed the flaw prior to launch. Part of those cost overruns was designing the thing to be serviced in the first place instead of simplifying the design and launching it fully-tested and accepting a shorter design lifetime. Hubble is/was a great achievement, no doubt. But some astronomers wish the design had been scaled back and two or three shorter-duration, improved models had been launched over the last 22 years instead of spending that same money on servicing missions.

It's all a tradeoff.


----------



## evan_s

I have to agree with lefty here. Recovering or servicing sats isn't something I expect any time soon. The cost of launch things is just far too high for it to make sense and I don't see that changing any time soon. Human servicing has far too much overhead (need to provide food, oxygen, extra protection, etc.) and robotic is just far too complex. Sure, if everything was in perfect condition and went perfectly you might be able to service an old sat and keep it running but you'd still be limited by the old design and the reality is the sat has spent years in a harsh environment and isn't going to be in perfect condition and things will go wrong. Far safer and easier to launch a replacement sat and you get to benefit from the advances in technology. Most everything else now a days is disposable and there isn't any huge overhead with trying to repair a cell phone or TV.

BTW the aberration in the mirror wasn't due to a mathematical error. It was a flaw in the manufacturing process due to stress and deadlines. The had made a previous, smaller mirror that was perfect. It starts on the bottom of page 2 and continues on to page 3.

http://www.techworld.com.au/article..._telescope_what_managers_can_learn_from_it_/?


----------



## Groundhog45

RAD said:


> I did retreive one satellite that was in LEO, http://www.sattel.com/life_of_palapa_b2.htm .


That is very cool.


----------



## HarleyD

I anticipate that nothing of substance will be done in this area until the proliferation of space "junk" becomes untenable.

And even then, I would not be surprised to see a deliberately destructive de-orbiting approach rather than recovery. Let them burn up on re-entry and be done with them.


----------



## LameLefty

HarleyD said:


> I anticipate that nothing of substance will be done in this area until the proliferation of space "junk" becomes untenable.
> 
> And even then, I would not be surprised to see a deliberately destructive de-orbiting approach rather than recovery. Let them burn up on re-entry and be done with them.


For LEO satellites, that is the goal. However, for GSO vehicles, it would require a great deal of fuel to lower the perigee of the orbit enough to intersect with the atmosphere at a low-enough level to ensure vehicle breakup and burnup. Risk of debris hitting the ground or in shipping lanes must be minimized. Satellites tend to have some parts, especially tanks or pressure vessels, that are very resilient and can (and have in the past) survive reentry. So for GSO satellites, the FCC and international regulation require orbit raising to several hundred kilometers above GSO into "graveyard orbits" that are stable for several thousand years at least.


----------



## inkahauts

"LameLefty" said:


> For LEO satellites, that is the goal. However, for GSO vehicles, it would require a great deal of fuel to lower the perigee of the orbit enough to intersect with the atmosphere at a low-enough level to ensure vehicle breakup and burnup. Risk of debris hitting the ground or in shipping lanes must be minimized. Satellites tend to have some parts, especially tanks or pressure vessels, that are very resilient and can (and have in the past) survive reentry. So for GSO satellites, the FCC and international regulation require orbit raising to several hundred kilometers above GSO into "graveyard orbits" that are stable for several thousand years at least.


So let people in a couple thousand years deal with it cause we won't be around! 

Curios, how hard would it be to raise their orbit enough for it to slowly get bigger and bigger in its circling of the globe and then eventually head off toward somewhere else, like the sun or on to the next Galaxy or something... And I mean over the course of a hundred years or so (maybe even a thousand since we evidently have that long) something slow but just enough to make it happen...


----------



## Diana C

IIRC there was a Jerry Pournelle story about the aftermath of a major war, during which "killer satellites" were used to destroy the enemy's satellite communications network. The result was so much space junk that human beings were trapped on earth - nothing could survive a trip through the junkyard.

We may get there without a war...this is what is in orbit now...


----------



## HoTat2

Sixto said:


> ...
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number[/INDENT]
> 
> *"DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC requests authority to operate a new DBS earth station at its Virginica facility."*


DIRECTV files for a 60 day STA to begin testing of its new DBS earth station at the above referenced Virginia ECUF beginning 10/1 for communication with D7S.

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=965508


----------



## Ernie

inkahauts said:


> So let people in a couple thousand years deal with it cause we won't be around!
> 
> Curios, how hard would it be to raise their orbit enough for it to slowly get bigger and bigger in its circling of the globe and then eventually head off toward somewhere else, like the sun or on to the next Galaxy or something... And I mean over the course of a hundred years or so (maybe even a thousand since we evidently have that long) something slow but just enough to make it happen...


That isn't going to happen. Orbits get higher when energy is imparted to the satellite. The moon's orbit increases about 4 cm/yr due to the effects of the moon caused tides slowing the earth. This complex interaction transfers energy from the earth's rotation to the moon. Unfortunately, a satellite nearly at geosynchronous orbit won't induce a tide on earth that will transfer energy to it.

Ernie


----------



## LameLefty

Ernie said:


> That isn't going to happen. Orbits get higher when energy is imparted to the satellite. The moon's orbit increases about 4 cm/yr due to the effects of the moon caused tides slowing the earth. This complex interaction transfers energy from the earth's rotation to the moon. Unfortunately, a satellite nearly at geosynchronous orbit won't induce a tide on earth that will transfer energy to it.
> 
> Ernie


Not to mention the fact that Moon is so massive that the epicenter of its orbit isn't even at the center of the Earth, which causes a small but measurable wobble in Earth's rotation; it's also far enough away that the sun has an effect on the Moon's orbit as well.

Of course, if we're getting into second- and third-order effects, we might as well go off on solar radiation pressure on satellites too.


----------



## Laxguy

I feel I should recognize your new avatar, Herb, but I canna'.


----------



## LameLefty

Laxguy said:


> I feel I should recognize your new avatar, Herb, but I canna'.


What, you don't recognize Lt. Templeton "Faceman" Peck? :grin:

(Don't worry - I'm planning to change it again ... "soon"  )


----------



## Laxguy

LameLefty said:


> What, you don't recognize Lt. Templeton "Faceman" Peck? :grin:
> 
> (Don't worry - I'm planning to change it again ... "soon"  )


No, FOOL! I didn't....:lol: I'd have recognized Mr. T, but more due to his afterlife in commercials than from the show. 
Wouldn't have helped to have seen the attached, either. I missed the entire A-team for whatever reason.


----------



## LameLefty

Not particularly applicable to U.S. subscribers, but Directv on Thursday applies to the FCC for launch and operate authority for "Directv Ku-76W", a new Ku band satellite to expand broadcast capability to Mexico for Directv Latin America.


----------



## P Smith

Posted already http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=210099


----------



## LameLefty

P Smith said:


> Posted already http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=210099


Whoopdifreakin do.  It wasn't posted here in the Satellite discussion thread.

Besides, I thought I was on your IGNORE list? :nono:


----------



## LameLefty

No one's posted this, so I guess we're slacking off. Directv's application to launch and operate Directv 14 for the 99ºW slot was granted, as of 10 days ago.

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

(Apologies in advance if the URL gets fubar'd. The FCC's website is NOT link-friendly).

You can click the "Other Filings" link on the page and get the actual FCC grant document. There are interesting tidbits buried inside - for instance, it confirms that Directv 14 and Directv RB-1 (already authorized BSS bird) will be separate payloads on the same physical spacecraft at 99.235ºW. It also requires that Directv 14 be on-station and operational prior to the end of service of Spaceway 2, else the authorization is voided. I found that an intriguing requirement - is SW2 in danger of early failure? Is Directv planning to move it? Hmm.


----------



## Sixto

Yep, slacking off, good stuff.


----------



## RAD

OK, I've lost track, what's the guess for when this goes up?


----------



## LameLefty

RAD said:


> OK, I've lost track, what's the guess for when this goes up?


Arianespace's September 2011 press release says "2014." I haven't looked for anything more recent.

http://www.arianespace.com/news-press-release/2011/9-13-2011-directv.asp


----------



## dpeters11

I think there had been talks it is supposed to be early 2014, like January.

http://www.satlaunch.net/p/launch-schedule-2014.html


----------



## LameLefty

dpeters11 said:


> I think there had been talks it is supposed to be early 2014, like January.
> 
> http://www.satlaunch.net/p/launch-schedule-2014.html


"Early 2014" is the closes I've seen it nailed down. Some other unofficial Arianespace launch calendars show a few other "early 2014" launches ahead of this one, so I'll take it all with a grain of salt until the satellite ships from the manufacturer to the launch site. A lot can happen in the next 14 months. After all, ANOTHER Proton failed just a week or so ago, which is gonna scramble ILS's calendar and backlogs. Arianespace hasn't had a major problem in awhile - hope the statistics don't catch up to them between now and then.


----------



## Go Beavs

LameLefty said:


> No one's posted this, so I guess we're slacking off. Directv's application to launch and operate Directv 14 for the 99ºW slot was granted, as of 10 days ago.
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number
> 
> (Apologies in advance if the URL gets fubar'd. The FCC's website is NOT link-friendly).
> 
> You can click the "Other Filings" link on the page and get the actual FCC grant document. There are interesting tidbits buried inside - for instance, it confirms that Directv 14 and Directv RB-14 (already authorized BSS bird) will be separate payloads on the same physical spacecraft at 99.235ºW. It also requires that Directv 14 be on-station and operational prior to the end of service of Spaceway 2, else the authorization is voided. *I found that an intriguing requirement - is SW2 in danger of early failure?* Is Directv planning to move it? Hmm.


Maybe it's just a formality. They require DIRECTV 14 to be operational before DIRECTV 11 ends service as well. :shrug:


----------



## HoTat2

Go Beavs said:


> Maybe it's just a formality. They require DIRECTV 14 to be operational before DIRECTV 11 ends service as well. :shrug:


Or at least regarding that its TT&C operations need be, whatever that means ...

Under item 10.



> DIRECTV 14 must begin TT&C operations at 99.235° W.L. using center frequencies at
> 18.799 GHz (space-to-Earth), 18.7995 GHz (space-to-Earth), 28.351 GHz (Earth-to-space), and 28.353
> GHz (Earth-to-space) before the DIRECTV 11 space station discontinues service at the nominal99° W.L.
> orbital location. Failure to meet this milestone shall render this authorization to operate in these
> frequencies NULL and VOID.


----------



## HoTat2

LameLefty said:


> ... You can click the "Other Filings" link on the page and get the actual FCC grant document. There are interesting tidbits buried inside - for instance, it confirms that Directv 14 and *Directv RB-14* (already authorized BSS bird) will be separate payloads on the same physical spacecraft at 99.235ºW. It also requires that Directv 14 be on-station and operational prior to the end of service of Spaceway 2, else the authorization is voided. I found that an intriguing requirement - is SW2 in danger of early failure? Is Directv planning to move it? Hmm.


Are they now calling it "RB-14" instead of "RB-1" (call sign S2711) nowadays?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Go Beavs said:


> Maybe it's just a formality. They require DIRECTV 14 to be operational before DIRECTV 11 ends service as well. :shrug:


Could be...I was thinking there might be some kind of operational limit to the number of units in that general location up there or something like that.


----------



## LameLefty

HoTat2 said:


> Are they now calling it "RB-14" instead of "RB-1" (call sign S2711) nowadays?


Nope, sorry. That was a typo on my part. I'll fix it in my earlier post.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

LameLefty said:


> Nope, sorry. That was a typo on my part. I'll fix it in my earlier post.


No worries....most of us rely on information from a known Rocket Scientist on these things anyway.


----------



## HoTat2

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Could be...I was thinking there might be some kind of operational limit to the number of units in that general location up there or something like that.


Or perhaps it has to due with the grant of allowing non-standard operating frequencies for TT&C to D14 described in item 8 caused by logjam at the normal TT&C frequency assignments already being used by SW2 and D11.

If D11 is no longer occupying the normal TT&C frequencies by the time D14 starts using the non-standard ones, there is then no need for the non-standard frequency grant waiver listed under item 8.

I guess ...


----------



## Go Beavs

HoTat2 said:


> Or perhaps it has to due with the grant of allowing non-standard operating frequencies for TT&C to D14 described in item 8 caused by logjam at the normal TT&C frequency assignments already being used by SW2 and D11.
> 
> If D11 is no longer occupying the normal TT&C frequencies by the time D14 starts using the non-standard ones, there is then no need for the non-standard frequency grant waiver listed under item 8.
> 
> I guess ...


That sounds pretty reasonable, but we are dealing with a government agency here so... :lol:


----------



## inkahauts

Wonder if they aren't planning on using the space ways for non us stuff, since one of them is now doing Puerto Rico I believe. Maybe they will move the other to Latin America? Who knows?


----------



## Gary Toma

inkahauts said:


> Wonder if they aren't planning on using the space ways for non us stuff, since one of them is now doing Puerto Rico I believe. Maybe they will move the other to Latin America? Who knows?


Check the current TPN Maps. Puerto Rico is being treated as a new giant DMA (it is actually an SMA). This is Market #213 on the LIL TPN tab. It is a huge Market of over 3 Million 'TV Households' ( that's the Nielsen term). Note that both SW1 and SW2 are pressed into service here.

That 'domestic' service from the two SW sats goes live in Puerto Rico this coming week, with the free installation of what we think will be Slimline 3 dishes.

When the Puerto Rico transition is complete, bandwidth on G3C will then be freed up for Latin coverage. And we have already posted the Beam Footprint maps for Intelsat-30, which will be totally dedicated to Directv-Latin-America (DLA).


----------



## inkahauts

gct said:


> Check the current TPN Maps. Puerto Rico is being treated as a new giant DMA (it is actually an SMA). This is Market #213 on the LIL TPN tab. It is a huge Market of over 3 Million 'TV Households' ( that's the Nielsen term). Note that both SW1 and SW2 are pressed into service here.
> 
> That 'domestic' service from the two SW sats goes live in Puerto Rico this coming week, with the free installation of what we think will be Slimline 3 dishes.
> 
> When the Puerto Rico transition is complete, bandwidth on G3C will then be freed up for Latin coverage. And we have already posted the Beam Footprint maps for Intelsat-30, which will be totally dedicated to Directv-Latin-America (DLA).


I knew they where using one of the sw sats for that, didn't realize they where going to be using both. Do we think that's all they will be doing going forward? If so, that does seem to free up a lot of room for d14 and d15 I'd think.


----------



## Gary Toma

inkahauts said:


> I knew they where using one of the sw sats for that, didn't realize they where going to be using both. Do we think that's all they will be doing going forward? If so, that does seem to free up a lot of room for d14 and d15 I'd think.


Just my personal thought: The SW sats wiill both be quickly de-loaded of their US Domestic load to D14 and D15. The D14 and D15 will carry on the Domestic load and Domestic growth load.

SW1 and SW2 will be pressed immediately into DLA Service.

The numbers are staggering. The US Domestic DMAs without HD LIL or SD LIL service comprise some 670,000 'Households'. The numbers of households begging for service in the DLA area is in the tens of millions of households. Growth opportunities in SKY_MEX are profound. The US Market is saturated; the Latin and SKY-MEX markets is where the growth and the revenue increases are waiting.


----------



## harsh

gct said:


> The SW sats wiill both be quickly de-loaded of their US Domestic load to D14 and D15.


Ignoring the flexible beam targeting capability of the Spaceway birds, either one of the new satellites should have the spot beam capacity of SW1 and SW2 combined.

Spending targetable beams on an area half again the size or Maryland seems like a waste.


----------



## HarleyD

harsh said:


> Ignoring the flexible beam targeting capability of the Spaceway birds, either one of the new satellites should have the spot beam capacity of SW1 and SW2 combined.
> 
> Spending targetable beams on an area half again the size or Maryland seems like a waste.


Unless you no longer require the targeting capability. In that case it would be a waste not to use the available bandwidth wherever is needed. And if that need exists in a market with the potential for explosive growth then all the better.


----------



## inkahauts

"harsh" said:


> Ignoring the flexible beam targeting capability of the Spaceway birds, either one of the new satellites should have the spot beam capacity of SW1 and SW2 combined.
> 
> Spending targetable beams on an area half again the size or Maryland seems like a waste.


Actually, you are likely correct, that the new birds will be able to cover as many or more areas as the space ways. But that makes your second part so very wrong. You can now use the entire bandwidth of the space ways to give an entire market every channel that is on the other main birds that the other main birds can't hit because of positioning, but the space ways can. Seems like a no brainer to me.


----------



## harsh

I seem to recall an area somewhere around Lost Wages that had significant trouble getting their spot beam as well as some market on the East Coast that was only partially served.

DIRECTV would probably do better to send an RB signal that way -- nore bang for the bandwidth (albeit without a transitional solution).


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> I seem to recall an area somewhere around Lost Wages that had significant trouble getting their spot beam as well as some market on the East Coast that was only partially served.
> 
> DIRECTV would probably do better to send an RB signal that way -- nore bang for the bandwidth (albeit without a transitional solution).


"RB" (Reverse Band) is destined for CONUS coverage and according to Phil Goswitz SVP Space & Communications, DIRECTV, Inc., to carry what looks like International programming. Perhaps an eventual replacement for the 95w International dish service?

No spotbeam capability is currently planned.

NOTE: and in case you're wondering, I think the Reverse Band RB-2A's four large SB payload aboard D12 at 103w is(was) for advanced customer testing while the dispute with Spectrum 5 was settled and are not steerable anyway.


----------



## inkahauts

"HoTat2" said:


> "RB" (Reverse Band) is destined for CONUS coverage and according to Phil Goswitz SVP Space & Communications, DIRECTV, Inc., to carry what looks like International programming. Perhaps an eventual replacement for the 95w International dish service?
> 
> No spotbeam capability is currently planned.
> 
> NOTE: and in case you're wondering, I think the Reverse Band RB-2A's four large SB payload aboard D12 at 103w is(was) for advanced customer testing while the dispute with Spectrum 5 was settled and are not steerable anyway.


Actually, if they use that for international, I'd say it might also be to replace everything at 119 as well. They may plan to move all services to 99 101 and 103 eventually.

With that said,I see no reasons pothead can't be used for rb at some point.


----------



## HoTat2

inkahauts said:


> Actually, if they use that for international, I'd say it might also be to replace everything at 119 as well. They may plan to move all services to 99 101 and 103 eventually.
> 
> With that said,I see no reasons pothead can't be used for rb at some point.


Could be;

I was just referring to a brief comment Goswitz recently made on the issue of the future use of RB in addition to the main topic of Ultra HD as quoted in the conclusion to a March 2012 article in AdvancedTelevision.com:



> "At DirecTV we see a couple of things happening," Goswitz said. "First, our subscribers are migrating away from Ku-band, and upgrading themselves to Ka-band and its HDTV services. In four or five years, our Ku-band [transmissions] could end. *We are also developing the so-called Reverse Band for DBS services, and these are on our Road Map for future international services.* ...


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401711,00.asp


----------



## RAD

Why would they want to give up the 32 Ku transponders at 101, IMHO that makes no sense?


----------



## HoTat2

RAD said:


> Why would they want to give up the 32 Ku transponders at 101, IMHO that makes no sense?


That's where the confusion comes in.

AdvancedTelevision.com in March has Goswitz saying Ku signals will eventually end.

Yet later at October 1st Swanni also allegedly quotes from AdvancedTelevision.com (no date given) has Goswitz now saying the Ku band will be used in the future for Ultra HD channels.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/dhd100112.htm


----------



## inkahauts

"HoTat2" said:


> That's where the confusion comes in.
> 
> AdvancedTelevision.com in March has Goswitz saying Ku signals will eventually end.
> 
> Yet later at October 1st Swanni also allegedly quotes from AdvancedTelevision.com (no date given) has Goswitz now saying the Ku band will be used in the future for Ultra HD channels.
> 
> http://www.tvpredictions.com/dhd100112.htm


I think he probably meant that he sess sd mpeg2 from Ku ending, thus implying it will be retasked for other uses at some point than core sd programing that it is used for now. Possibly 4/8k. I also wouldn't be surprised if they use some bss at some point to get all the local sub channels. Maybe even some of the ku capacity at some point down the road, after its emptied.


----------



## cypherx

I think that the Ku band with its better signal to noise ratio and better ability to plow through rain fade (as opposed to Ka) would allow them to utilize higher order modulation rates (like 8PSK). This higher spectrum efficiency poses a great asset to high bandwidth 4k / 8k ultra definition content. Paired with new advanced codecs, there could be a capacity for a half decent lineup of 4k or even 8k channels.

I don't think they can bounce 8PSK off of many Ku transponders today because all the old equipment deployed out there that doesn't have the ability to demodulate that type of signal. I could see it being a gradual transition as old receivers are swapped out, much like some Echostar birds have a mix of 8PSK and QPSK.


----------



## HoTat2

cypherx said:


> I think that the Ku band with its better signal to noise ratio and better ability to plow through rain fade (as opposed to Ka) would allow them to utilize higher order modulation rates (like 8PSK). This higher spectrum efficiency poses a great asset to high bandwidth 4k / 8k ultra definition content. Paired with new advanced codecs, there could be a capacity for a half decent lineup of 4k or even 8k channels.
> 
> I don't think they can bounce 8PSK off of many Ku transponders today because all the old equipment deployed out there that doesn't have the ability to demodulate that type of signal. I could see it being a gradual transition as old receivers are swapped out, much like some Echostar birds have a mix of 8PSK and QPSK.


Yes, but I wonder if the regulations for the Ku band BSS service will need to be entirely revamped first, as they were firmly established by the FCC and ITU long ago (AP30/AP30A standards) for 32 24 MHz wide transponder channels per slot (For "our" ITU region 2) at 9 degree longitude spacing.

Doubt you can do much with only 24 MHz wide transponders for UHD even with higher level modulation like 8-PSK or new greater compression formats beyond MPEG-4.


----------



## Sixto

Brazil: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=984691

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws...=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number​


----------



## harsh

Sixto said:


> Brazil:


Isn't 45W outside the purview of the FCC?


----------



## yosoyellobo

When would D14 be operational more or less.


----------



## HoTat2

yosoyellobo said:


> When would D14 be *operational* more or less.


Estimate late first quarter to early second quarter 2014.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Thanks.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

"HoTat2" said:


> Estimate late first quarter to early second quarter 2014.


Has a launch date been set yet?


----------



## lwilli201

harsh said:


> Isn't 45W outside the purview of the FCC?


Very good question. 45W appears to be directly above Brazil. The filing indicates that the uplinks will be in Brazil. The US may be the coordinator of the geosynchronous orbit in the western hemisphere. Now who coordinates all the GPS and spy satellites running around up there is any ones guess.


----------



## HoTat2

TheRatPatrol said:


> Has a launch date been set yet?


Nothing definitive yet, other than the launch window estimate DIRECTV filed with the FCC in the Schedule S document.

From 1/15/2014 to 3/1/2014.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Isn't 45W outside the purview of the FCC?


Intelsat has a satellite at 45°WL that is authorized for service into the US and Canada, so I guess that gives the FCC some control. Also, since command and control, if not some uplink of content, could presumably originate in the US, that could also give the FCC a say.

I would imagine that DirecTV also needs to file an application with Brazil to authorize broadcasting into that country.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> Intelsat has a satellite at 45°WL that is authorized for service into the US and Canada, so I guess that gives the FCC some control. Also, since command and control, if not some uplink of content, could presumably originate in the US, that could also give the FCC a say.


From the filing, all transmission (including TT&C run on the edges of the uplink band) would be from and to Brazil.

The FCC generally doesn't hold sway to anything on or over international waters unless it is broadcast from a ship registered to the US so maybe that's what is going on here. IIRC, there are some Mexican broadcast stations located in the oceans that relay content under this exception.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> From the filing, all transmission (including TT&C run on the edges of the uplink band) would be from and to Brazil.
> 
> The FCC generally doesn't hold sway to anything on or over international waters unless it is broadcast from a ship registered to the US so maybe that's what is going on here. IIRC, there are some Mexican broadcast stations located in the oceans that relay content under this exception.


Uplink and C&C aside, I would still think that the presence of the Intelsat satellite gives the FCC some jurisdiction due to their responsibilities to avoid harmful interference.


----------



## Sixto

The latest with D14 17/24 GHz BSS testing:http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=992739​Will have the D14 thread "live" soon. (locked at the moment)


----------



## HarleyD

Well, this document had to be filed "no later than 9 months prior to launch" and it is dated April 5 so the soonest it could launch is early January, 2014...at the very earliest.

That doesn't even account for getting scheduled at the launch facility, etc.

So best case to see it lit up what with parking, IOT, etc is roughly a year from now.

I'm not obsessing, am I?


----------



## Sixto

That's about right from what we know now.


----------



## LameLefty

HarleyD said:


> Well, this document had to be filed "no later than 9 months prior to launch" and it is dated April 5 so the soonest it could launch is early January, 2014...at the very earliest.
> 
> That doesn't even account for getting scheduled at the launch facility, etc.
> 
> So best case to see it lit up what with parking, IOT, etc is roughly a year from now.
> 
> I'm not obsessing, am I?


D14 is still listed on the Arianespace launch manifest for "early 2014." It's fourth on the list right now, ahead on ATV-4 to the ISS, which has a definite launch date penciled in for April 12, 2014. The others will be slotted in pending payload availability, launch processing flow, range and tracking asset availability, etc.


----------



## bobnielsen

This thread has been somewhat quiet, but with D14/RB-1 being operational in about a year (+/-), iIt's probably a good time to wake it up and start discussing the implementation.

Have we determined what (if any) receiving equipment changes will be required for RB-1? It could require a new LNB assembly with two downconverters sharing the 103 feedhorn or two feedhorns for the same location. Would new SWMs be required? Would there be interference issues with the image frequency? 

Edit: That should be 99 rather than 103.


----------



## HoTat2

First since D14/RB-1 is headed for 99w, it'll be the 99 feed horn ... 

And as Dish Network successfully demonstrates by using frequencies up to 3 GHz over RG-6 coax to feed their Hopper, My guess is that a new LNB will be designed to place the RDBS band of 17.3-17.7 GHz somewhere 200 MHz or more above 2150 MHz on the two 99/101 lines for RB-1. And the same for the 103/110/119 and 103/119 lines on a SL-5 for RB-2 when launched (two 101/103 lines for a SL-3).

I also suspect that since the Ka band feed horns already span a broadband all the way from 20,2 to 18.3 GHz, it will be little matter for its dimensions to accommodate the 17.3-17.7 GHz band which is just a tiny bit lower than the 18.8-18.3 GHz Ka lo-band. Therefore no need for additional feed horns for the RDBS band.

Just my personal speculations here...


----------



## cypherx

I have an SL-3 and one single wire coming down from the dish into the garage which feeds a green label 8-way (one port is CCK feed through to power inserter).

Bottom line, will I need new equipment? Where and what? At what cost to me? How long would it take DirecTV to update the millions of people that would need this particular component update? Why not move MPEG2 SD boxes to MPEG4 at that time as well. Then when finished, they could move everything on 101 to MPEG4 and have even more bandwidth to play with.

HR24-200
H24-200


----------



## longrider

While no one here on the forum truly knows I would feel fairly confident saying that with a SWM-LNB such as you have the only thing that would have to be replaced would be the LNB. People with external SWM will need a new LNB, a new SWM 8 or 16 module and maybe another cable run if they cant stack it on one of the existing runs. Legacy users will have to convert to SWM as I dont see them developing new receivers that can handle the new signals in legacy format.


----------



## P Smith

Lets do little math..
LOF 18050
Range 17.4-17.7
getting 
IF 650...350 MHz (need Inversion )

Conclusion : if current LNBF has wider range, down to 17 GHz, then changing SL3 FW should be enough.


----------



## HoTat2

While I can't know for sure until I see the FCC filed LOA tech. data when submitted for Intelsat 31;

I also wonder if the future World Direct service (currently at 95w) is destined for the RDBS band at 99 and 103.

I noticed looking at the tech. info. filing for the coming Intelsat 30 satellite, there are no 11.7-12.2 GHz Ku band CONUS beam transponders available to serve the current 95w WD service. The entire Ku band payload is for south of the border Latin America/Caribbean service.

So assuming Intelsat 31 is the same in this respect as well, what happens to the World Direct service when the ageing Galaxy 3C bird reaches the end of its operational lifetime?

Could the need of a secondary WD dish aimed at 95w for International programming days be numbered?


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> Lets do little math..
> LOF 18050
> Range 17.4-17.7
> getting
> IF 650...350 MHz (need Inversion )
> 
> Conclusion : if current LNBF has wider range, down to 17 GHz, then changing SL3 FW should be enough.


P. Smith;

I remember VOS once suggesting that either a separate L.O. could be added in a new LNB for the RDBS band.

Or perhaps an LNB with a L.O. of 20.45 GHz for both the Ka and RDBS bands. This would mean the current Ka high and low bands would need to switch positions and invert their spectrums, but it would place the (also inverted) RDBS band between 2750-3150 MHz just within the coax bandwidth.

Of course this would mean new LNBs and any needed SWiM module swap outs along with firmware updates to the receivers for the new frequency positions and inversions this would result in.


----------



## P Smith

I'm wondering if current SL3 is capable to tune/cover the 17 GHz range ...
If I would know there is a signal, I could try.
Nay, it must be filtered out or it would interfere with current signals...


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> I'm wondering if current SL3 is capable to tune/cover the 17 GHz range ...
> If I would know there is a signal, I could try.
> *Nay, it must be filtered out or it would interfere with current signals...*


Agreed;

The LNB cannot let 17.3-17.7GHz RDBS signals reach the Ka band mixer or they will generate image frequencies of 350-750 MHz by mixing on the low side of the 18.05 GHz L.O. which will interfere with the 250-750 MHz Ka-lo band.


----------



## cypherx

Well sounds like DirecTV service personnel are going to be pretty swamped with LNB replacements.

I mean if D14 adds a bunch of new HD channels and other things... I know I'm going to have to pay for a service call to get it working.


----------



## Sixto

Similar to D12 (which shares with D10), D14 will have lots of regular Ka bandwidth and share with D11, besides the new reverse bandwidth, thus expecting the mainstream new adds to be available to everyone with no change, just as D12 does.


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> Agreed;
> 
> The LNB cannot let 17.3-17.7GHz RDBS signals reach the Ka band mixer or they will generate image frequencies of 350-750 MHz by mixing on the low side of the 18.05 GHz L.O. which will interfere with the 250-750 MHz Ka-lo band.


There is still a chance, Ka-Lo is not that taking all "slots", it has many gaps now, so with smart placing a many RDBS tpns could co-exist with Ka-Lo.


----------



## inkahauts

Pretty sure it's been said no upgrading of any current equipment is needed. Don't know if that's cause it won't be used For mainstream or what.


----------



## HoTat2

inkahauts said:


> Pretty sure it's been said no upgrading of any current equipment is needed. Don't know if that's cause it won't be used For mainstream or what.


For the Ka band reception, true, no need of new equipment.

To receive the RDBS band, needs for new equipment and FW updates is a certainty I'm sure.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Would this include having to get new receivers as well?


----------



## P Smith

hehe ... nope ... just new FW would be enough


----------



## HoTat2

TheRatPatrol said:


> Would this include having to get new receivers as well?


For SWiM technology at least, I really don't see why new receivers (or more generally "hardware") would be necessary. Seems like just a matter of the receiver's FW being updated to communicate new transponder selection messages over the 2.3 MHz control channel for the 18 transponders within the new 17.3-17.7 GHz RDBS band which is now part of the frequency stack input to the SWiM switch of either a new SWiMLNB or external SWiM module.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> hehe ... nope ... just new FW would be enough


P. Smith;

The current LNB down-converted frequency stack is of course 250-750 MHz, 950-1450 MHz, and 1650-2150 MHz, which then feeds into a SWiM switch, integrated or external. Now how can the new 17.3-17.7 GHz band be translated to somewhere above 2150 MHz (since there is no place left in the band stack to place it) without hardware upgrades to the LNBs and any external SWiM modules?


----------



## P Smith

I would guess, but there are 18 "channels" I've seen in SWiM SL3 output (see AT-9 thread), also I did answer to a q about receivers, only. SWiM have a deal with LNBF outputs (IF) directly, using a matrix switch IC - no need to send it above 2.15 GHz freq.


----------



## cypherx

Well for RDBS if new hardware is needed, then maybe they would regulate special programming like HD Ethnic tiers in there. That would cut back on the number of visits to homes to get this accomplished.

If the mainstream D14 will not need equipment upgrades (simply firmware to tell the receiver where to tune and how to display it in the signal diagnostic screen), then that would be great!


----------



## harsh

The beauty of something like SWiM is that the receivers only need to understand how to control the switchgear. As long as the SWiM channels are large enough to handle a transponder, there shouldn't be a problem.

Existing external SWiM switchgear seems very, very iffy.

There will be ongoing debate about receiving multiple bands from the same slot.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> I would guess, but there are 18 "channels" I've seen in SWiM SL3 output (see AT-9 thread), also I did answer to a q about receivers, only. SWiM have a deal with LNBF outputs (IF) directly, using a matrix switch IC - no need to send it above 2.15 GHz freq.


P. Smith, if you're referring to the recent AT-9 thread here; http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/205263-at9-dish/
I can't find any post by you there mentioning these "18 channels" you discovered from an SL-3 LNB.

Could you provide a link?

You see I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly I admit, that even for the integrated SWiM in an LNB, the "input" side of the single wire multiswitch circuitry requires the same traditional 4 wire (for Sat. A, B, and possibly C) input from the LNBs for the 950-2150 MHz frequency stack. Though for the integrated SWiM the "wires" are likely circuit board traces.

[strike]Therefore to add the 17.3-17.7 GHz band requires "two" additional wires from new RDBS band LNB circuits for the two 9 channel odd-even transponder sets, since the new band would have to be placed somewhere outside the current stack above 2150 MHz and cannot "share" the same 4 Ku band wires like the current Ka band does. [/strike]


----------



## P Smith

Nope, other one (perhaps with other keyword :scratch: ) - there're two participants at its end - VOS and me, I posted pictures and we did talk about SWiM signaling ...

As to using 250/950/1650 IF freqs, it's a requirement for switches outside LNBF like WB68 or SWM16. Inside of a block of LNBFs all three or four LNBF outputs could come to internal switch as direct lines from each LNBF without shifting up or down, output from the combo (LNBFs and *SWiM* switch) is a result of *converting* to narrow chunks [individual tpn], not shifting up/down whole 500 MHz range with all even/odd tpns.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> Nope, other one (perhaps with other keyword :scratch: ) - there're two participants at its end - VOS and me, I posted pictures and we did talk about SWiM signaling ...
> 
> As to using 250/950/1650 IF freqs, it's a requirement for switches outside LNBF like WB68 or SWM16. Inside of a block of LNBFs all three or four LNBF outputs could come to internal switch as direct lines from each LNBF without shifting up or down, output from the combo (LNBFs and *SWiM* switch) is a result of *converting* to narrow chunks [individual tpn], not shifting up/down whole 500 MHz range with all even/odd tpns.


Ok, this is my thinking;

First let me say "my bad" for asserting that two additional wires would be needed to incorporate the RDBS band. :sure: Only the standard 4 are needed and I've struck those statements in my prior post.

Anyway, let's assume the same 200 MHz guard band is used between the frequency blocks in the current stack;

Using the standard 4 trunk wire input to a single wire multiswitch, the hypothetical frequency stack from the LNBs to the SWiM switch would be ...

Wire 1 = 101 Ku (950-1450 MHz) + 99 Ka (250-750 MHz and 1650-2150 MHz) + RB-1 (2350- 2750 MHz); EVEN Transponders

Wire 2 = 101 Ku (950-1450 MHz) + 99 Ka (250-750 MHz and 1650-2150 MHz) + RB-1 (2350- 2750 MHz); ODD Transponders

Wire 3 = 110 (possibly) + 119 Ku (950-1450) + 103 Ka (250-750 MHz and 1650-2150 MHz) + RB-2 (2350-2750 MHz): EVEN transponders.

Wire 4 = 119 Ku (950-1450) + 103 Ka (250-750 MHz and 1650-2150 MHz) + RB-2 (2350-2750 MHz): ODD transponders.

Note: For a SL-3 wires 1 and 2 are the same as above. Wires 3 and 4 have 101 replacing 119 above and no 110 of course.

The issue here hardware-wise though is how to down-convert the incoming 17.3-17.7 GHz RDBS band to something like this 2350-2750 MHz example and how to update the FW (assuming it needs it) for the SWiM multiswitch to accommodate the new RDBS frequency block without the need for new equipment.

Now are you saying this is not the method it would done at least for the inputs to the SWiM multiswitch circuitry?

As I visualize the SWiMLNB as just like a miniaturized and integrated (on the same circuit board) version of its enlarged cousin. A conventional LNB connected by 4 trunk lines which feed the 950-2150 MHz frequency stack to an external SWiM-8 module.


----------



## sarhaynes

Not that I'm not interested in the conversation that is being held here, but I think we have gone off topic. This thread is to discuss events related to the launching and technology to be used on D14. I realize that RDBS is a major feature of D14, but we have gotten into a discussion on the terrestial equipment being used to process RDBS. So I guess my question is does this deserve a thread of it's own?


----------



## P Smith

I would vote - yes and no . We almost done.
I would post just a picture to show internals of LNBFs & SWiM switch combo with signals and after that the side aspect of future implementation of receiving RDBS signals from D14 will be closed forever (!, yeah!)


----------



## cypherx

I thought RDBS was a feature of the last few birds that launched and yet we didn't ever get the authorization to use those yet did we?


----------



## P Smith

I would guess, if they are up there and FCC knows, then some test is undergoing (quietly for us)


----------



## HoTat2

cypherx said:


> I thought RDBS was a feature of the last few birds that launched and yet we didn't ever get the authorization to use those yet did we?


Well, IIRC the RDBS payload on D11 was strictly an experimental package and transmitted only continuous wave signals, No modulation. When D12 went up DIRECTV was in the midst disputing with Spectrum 5 over the reverse band rights to 103 w, so D12 was equipped with a very limited spotbeamed RDBS band payload, "RB-2A," for advanced customer testing I assume, preceding their full CONUS coverage RB-2 bird which by then the dispute should be resolved,

The future D14/RB-1 will be the first to carry a full CONUS coverage RDBS payload for actual subscriber use at 99 w. Thus my active discussion here about it here.

However, even though I feel this is a part of D14 and relevant to the thread here, if the moderators feel its OT, I'll certainly drop the subject for any other news about D14.

Though I've heard nothing else new to report on D14's progress so far.

Be great if SS Loral or DIRECTV released regular updates on D14 and other satellites under construction, but they don't. .


----------



## Sixto

Fine to discuss here, will reopen that D14 thread eventually.


----------



## cypherx

Well if there's some form of RDBS that was already planned and maybe even tested, makes me wonder what accommodations (if any) were made when engineering SWM. How flexible did they design it... How much can firmware control (variable programmable filters and tuners) vs how much is hard coded / limited by the physical electronics.

Yeah getting OT, but when D14 is up we curious minds want to know how to receive its signals in full!


----------



## Sixto

This topic has come up before and previously we've not seen any ability to upgrade the firmware in a SWiM in the field. At least previously. Also don't know how flexible it already is. There have been rumors of new SWiM technology.


----------



## Diana C

With a new LNB that puts the RDBS on a new pair of wires, couldn't they just use the Flex Ports on the existing SWMs?


----------



## harsh

I understand that there are C and Ku combinations but is it at all possible to set up a feed horn that can do Ku and RDBS where the frequencies aren't handy multiples? Needing multiple and/or regional reflectors or some manner of oversized siamesed dish doesn't seem workable.


----------



## HoTat2

Diana C said:


> With a new LNB that puts the RDBS on a new pair of wires, couldn't they just use the Flex Ports on the existing SWMs?


Should be possible, even though like other specific details of DIRECTV's ODU equipment our knowledge of how the flexports are signaled is limited due to corporate propriety;

But while sufficient miniaturization may make an integrated SWiMLNB feasible, you're talking about a rather large hardware change for subs. using external SWiM modules.

A new wider LNB with six female F connectors, requiring a wider LNB feed arm and thus a new dish assembly part to accommodate it.

And then I'm sure the SWiM modules would mostly need to be installed or re-installed outdoors since how many subs want and unsightly 6 coax cables (or three twins) running through a larger access hole in their homes?

The present 4 cables (or two twins) is bad enough already, but now 6?
:nono2:


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> I understand that there are C and Ku combinations but is it at all possible to set up a feed horn that can do Ku and RDBS where the frequencies aren't handy multiples? Needing multiple and/or regional reflectors or some manner of oversized siamesed dish doesn't seem workable.


I think the main question here is if the frequency response of the Ka band feedhorns at 99 and 103 extend, or be modified to extend in a new LNB, slightly below the Ka-lo band at 18.3-18.8 GHz to accept the RDBS band at 17.3-17.7 GHz as well?


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> Should be possible, even though like other specific details of DIRECTV's ODU equipment our knowledge of how the flexports are signaled is limited due to corporate propriety;
> ...


we already has the knowledge how FPs controlling ... I posted the DiSEqC-like cmds


----------



## David Ortiz

> I understand that there are C and Ku combinations but is it at all possible to set up a feed horn that can do Ku and RDBS where the frequencies aren't handy multiples? Needing multiple and/or regional reflectors or some manner of oversized siamesed dish doesn't seem workable.





> I think the main question here is if the frequency response of the Ka band feedhorns at 99 and 103 extend, or be modified to extend in a new LNB, slightly below the Ka-lo band at 18.3-18.8 GHz to accept the RDBS band at 17.3-17.7 GHz as well?


DIRECTV has a patent for an ODU using a frequency selective surface that would reflect the Ku signal to a feedhorn on the dish arm, and allow the Ka signal to pass through this surface to the feedhorn at the end of the arm. The patent description indicates that a Ka/Ku feedhorn isn't possible due to the wide range of frequencies. It does say that moving the Ku feedhorn would allow "improved reception efficiency for all the feedhorns". This change would be necessary for receiving Ka and Ku signals from 101 and the patent description doesn't specifically discuss the capabilities of the current dish with regard to Reverse band frequencies.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> we already has the knowledge how FPs controlling ... I posted the DiSEqC-like cmds


P. Smith, I recall you once posting the DiSEqC commands for switching a BBC, but not for the flexports.

Maybe I missed it, got a link or can post them again?


----------



## P Smith

I don't have it ... thought it could be found if need ... something like 'e101' 'e102' ... but the darn cmd must be send constantly, like 22 KHz tone


----------



## cypherx

David Ortiz said:


> DIRECTV has a patent for an ODU using a frequency selective surface that would reflect the Ku signal to a feedhorn on the dish arm, and allow the Ka signal to pass through this surface to the feedhorn at the end of the arm. The patent description indicates that a Ka/Ku feedhorn isn't possible due to the wide range of frequencies. It does say that moving the Ku feedhorn would allow "improved reception efficiency for all the feedhorns". This change would be necessary for receiving Ka and Ku signals from 101 and the patent description doesn't specifically discuss the capabilities of the current dish with regard to Reverse band frequencies.


And here is that patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/US7982687

Very interesting stuff!


----------



## HoTat2

cypherx said:


> And here is that patent:
> http://www.google.com/patents/US7982687
> 
> Very interesting stuff!


Yes it is;

But as a viable way to receive Ka band signals separately from simultaneous Ku ones at 101.

When I first saw that patent at the time I thought at first it would furnish some insights into what DIRECTV had in planning for RDBS band reception from 99 and 103, but it wasn't unfortunately.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> When I first saw that patent at the time I thought at first it would furnish some insights into what DIRECTV had in planning for RDBS band reception from 99 and 103, but it wasn't unfortunately.


It is starting to look like all the discussion of switchgear, software and even the RDBS payload is probably moot with respect to DIRECTV 14 and how it will impact the usable bandwidth for residential subscribers.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> It is starting to look like all the discussion of switchgear, software and even the RDBS payload is probably moot with respect to DIRECTV 14 and how it will impact the usable bandwidth for residential subscribers.


Why?


----------



## P Smith

I think it's because DTV didn't make any clear statements of using it, of new switchgear, dishes, LNBF, freq stacks ... total blackout, like they doing preliminary work, but not anything to agile us, customers, installers and forum's posters


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> It is starting to look like all the discussion of switchgear, software and even the RDBS payload is probably moot with respect to DIRECTV 14 and how it will impact the usable bandwidth for residential subscribers.


:lol:


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> Why?


How?


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> How?


The possible "how" is what we're discussing here. But what I meant is "why" is it your contention that the way RDBS reception may be implemented on the subscriber end is a "moot" point now?

You mean DIRECTV made all this pioneering effort and financial investment in earth and space equipment for RDBS transmission over the years, just to do an abrupt about-face and scrap it all at this point?

What proof do you have of that?


----------



## P Smith

the 'proof' will be real MOOT point


----------



## James Long

RDBS will be used ... but as a new band requiring a new LNB any use will require upgrading each and every subscriber that will need to receive the RDBS signal. It isn't as easy as launching the satellite and "poof" millions of existing setups can already receive the new channels being placed on RDBS. Unless every HD subscriber is upgraded the use will be limited to those who have been upgraded.


----------



## HarleyD

What are the chances that the RDBS payload could be lit up at a later time? 

If the plans for RDBS entail more bandwidth than just the D14 payload can provide maybe it's being staged.

Get D14 into its' orbital slot and the the RDBS payload validated durint IOT and let it idle for now. Follow it up with more of the same on D15 later in the year which would then effectively double the RDBS bandwidth in the air and ready to use. Place two birds with fully functional RDBS hardware by the end of 2014 and then roll out hardware upgrades to make use of it all starting in 2015


----------



## damondlt

Is there and up to date page with the specs and the Launch date?


----------



## HoTat2

damondlt said:


> Is there and up to date page with the specs and the Launch date?


No site that I know of, just pretty much the official FCC filings right now.

Satellite construction commencement date: 4/9/10
Completion date: 1/1/14
Estimated Launch Window: 1/15/14 - 3/1/14
Estimated date for placement into service: 5/1/14


----------



## longrider

HoTat2 said:


> No site that I know of, just pretty much the official FCC filings right now.
> 
> Satellite construction commencement date: 4/9/10
> Completion date: 1/1/14


I am no expert, but can anyone explain why it takes over 3 years to physically build the satellite? I could see 3 years if that included design and engineering, but just to build it??


----------



## P Smith

it does both - design is unique for each sat contrary to a car; adding to that there is no manufacturing line for sats


----------



## RAD

Plus it must go through some very long testing process to make sure everything is going to work and keep working since you can't go up and repair it once it's been launched.


----------



## HoTat2

RAD said:


> Plus it must go through some very long testing process to make sure everything is going to work and keep working since you can't go up and repair it once it's been launched.


Yep;

For instance notice the extensive test-bed procedure posted by Sixto back in April run by SS Loral just for proof of performance for the 17/24 GHz RDBS band antenna.

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/170004-directv-satellite-discussion-d14-up-next/?p=3119371

Its also of note there that acceptable results of this test must be submitted to the FCC at least 9 months prior to launch, which confirms a launch sometime in the first quarter of next year.


----------



## HarleyD

Not to mention that SSL probably isn't standing around doing nothing at any given time. Orders aren't going to go to the floor for assembly the same day as the order is received.

Nothing happens until the commitment is made by the customer. Once the customer signs the paperwork then things start happening. Material Requirement Planning. Manufacturing Capacity Scheduling, etc.

I can only imagine that many of the components of both the main satellite bus and the payload are high dollar items that are made to order. They aren't kept sitting around on the shelf anywhere. Not at SSL. Not at the vendor who supplies SSL. So SSL orders what they need. Based on the lead times of those items and the existing workload, the manufacturing can start being integrated into their schedule. It isn't uncommon for the components to carry lead times of multiple months. 

The vendors to SSL also will have to place orders for materials and schedule their work and purchasing in response to the orders for components that SSL makes. There will be lead times associated with those as well. And this will be a consideration for several levels as you drill down through the Bill Of Materials for each item that goes into the end product.

But with the dollar cost associated with all of this stuff, most vendors and manufacturer's aren't going to do anything until they have a signed order in hand and they don't tie up big money keeping any of this stuff in stock. Every bird is built to order and is customized to boot. Thus it takes a very long time for all the pieces, parts, components and assemblies to come together at each level and ultimately trickle back to SSL for final assembly.

All things considered, based on my history in manufacturing and materials control, three years sounds about right.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> The possible "how" is what we're discussing here.


The discussion seems to have taken for granted that receiving the downlink signal is a foregone conclusion. I submit that the cart has been put before the horse.


> But what I meant is "why" is it your contention that the way RDBS reception may be implemented on the subscriber end is a "moot" point now?


Absent documentation or demonstration of some type of antenna that can pull off both bands and still qualify under OTARD, I have to ask how.


> You mean DIRECTV made all this pioneering effort and financial investment in earth and space equipment for RDBS transmission over the years, just to do an abrupt about-face and scrap it all at this point?


DIRECTV has their fingers in many pies in terms of the services they offer so I'm not convinced it is all for naught. I'm just trying to figure out if it can be used for residential use or it is an alternative to spending bandwidth that residential service could benefit from by shifting commercial traffic to the new band.

DIRECTV has long demonstrated a willingness to camp on bandwidth that they don't effectively use for residential service (see more at DIRECTV 5).


----------



## harsh

HarleyD said:


> All things considered, based on my history in manufacturing and materials control, three years sounds about right.


SSL began construction (Q2 2010) on DIRECTV 14 nearly four years before it is expected to launch (latest guess is "early" 2014 according to Salo at nasaspaceflight).

http://www.ssloral.com/html/pressreleases/pr20100611.html


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> The discussion seems to have taken for granted that receiving the downlink signal is a foregone conclusion. I submit that the cart has been put before the horse.
> Absent documentation or demonstration of some type of antenna that can pull off both bands and still qualify under OTARD, I have to ask how.
> DIRECTV has their fingers in many pies in terms of the services they offer so I'm not convinced it is all for naught. I'm just trying to figure out if it can be used for residential use or it is an alternative to spending bandwidth that residential service could benefit from by shifting commercial traffic to the new band.
> 
> DIRECTV has long demonstrated a willingness to camp on bandwidth that they don't effectively use for residential service (see more at DIRECTV 5).


So you know all the results from all the testing they did with the test packages they installed on the last two satelites they launched? They already know what they are doing and how to use it, they just haven't announced it to anyone.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> The discussion seems to have taken for granted that receiving the downlink signal is a foregone conclusion. I submit that the cart has been put before the horse.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd argue that if RDBS is intended for mainstream programming, then its indeed unusual and late in the process that DIRECTV has not yet revealed and begun upgrading subscriber equipment by now. However if its intended for the limited audience of niche programming like perhaps the new home for the World Direct international service or some other as I suspect. Then there is still plenty of time for DIRECTV to deploy RDBS reception upgrades to the limited number of subscribers that (or will) receive this programming with RB-1 operational still almost a year away and RB-2 even further.
> 
> ... Absent documentation or demonstration of some type of antenna that can pull off both bands and still qualify under OTARD, I have to ask how.
> DIRECTV has their fingers in many pies in terms of the services they offer so I'm not convinced it is all for naught. I'm just trying to figure out if it can be used for residential use or it is an alternative to spending bandwidth that residential service could benefit from by shifting commercial traffic to the new band.
Click to expand...

As I stated, for mainstream programming you may have a point, but for niche there's still lots of time to reveal and deploy subscriber gear. And what substantial non-subscriber commercial traffic does DIRECTV carry that shifting it to the RDBS band transponders will be of benefit?

I mean DIRECTV is not like a Common Carrier. 



> ... DIRECTV has long demonstrated a willingness to camp on bandwidth that they don't effectively use for residential service (see more at DIRECTV 5).


Do you have another example of this alleged "spectrum squatting" by DIRECTV? 

Since DIRECTV-5 (Tempo-1) is currently serving a very important role for Puerto Rico subscribers. So DIRECTV is hardly spectrum squatting at 110 at present.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

I don't really understand the time line. How can it take 4-ish years to construct a satellite? It’s a modular platform they’ve been building for over 25 years.

We construct and deliver two Virginia Class Submarines in that amount of time. I bet the basic platform is constructed ahead of time and is waiting for a final decision on the broadcasting equipment. There’s got to be a lot of time spent waiting, otherwise how could it take 4 to build?

Mike


----------



## RAD

Could be there's a lot more realestate work work in with a sub so many different areas can be worked on at the same time.With the satellite even though parts of it are modular there's not a lot of space for a ton of people to be working on it at the same time. Plus things probably get slowed down due to all the clean room precautions that must be taken that aren't needed on most of the sub.


----------



## P Smith

don't forget - each sat is unique to latest technology and particular latest requirements from the customer [DTV] hence RDBS example - TWTA and antennas for sure


----------



## studechip

I wonder if the RDBS technology is destined for some other company? Is it possible that Directv has been doing all of this testing for someone else?


----------



## P Smith

who knows ? but doesn't sound correct - pave a road for a competitor


----------



## inkahauts

Nah it's for them. Otherwise they would have disclosed that in filings. FCC and likely sec ones. 

I still suspect it will help with several things including 4k and Video On Demand and maybe someday sub channels from locals.


----------



## Go Beavs

inkahauts said:


> Nah it's for them. Otherwise they would have disclosed that in filings. FCC and likely sec ones.
> 
> I still suspect it will help with several things including 4k and Video On Demand and maybe someday sub channels from locals.


I think 4k makes sense, especially if they have to swap out LNBs or SWiM modules. If they are getting paid upgrades to 4k, it lessens the financial pain of replacing equipment.


----------



## P Smith

nah, 4k doesn't make sense either ...
how many customers out there now and in 2 years who will have 4k HDTV ? spending millions for a sat and new antennas and new receivers for 1000 customers ? nay, not going to be that purpose for RDBS, nope


----------



## harsh

Mike Bertelson said:


> I don't really understand the time line. How can it take 4-ish years to construct a satellite? It's a modular platform they've been building for over 25 years.


I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that SSL has many (if not most of the class' production) satellites coming together at once. If it wasn't satisfactory to DIRECTV, you might imagine they would have had other options.

SSL doesn't have a long-standing record of promising a delivery and missing it by large fractions of a year as Boeing seems to be given to.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> I still suspect it will help with several things including 4k and Video On Demand and maybe someday sub channels from locals.


Absent an OTARD compliant antenna, what good will it be? Even wealthy subscribers are limited to the protections provided by OTARD.


----------



## harsh

damondlt said:


> Is there and up to date page with the specs and the Launch date?


nasaspaceflight has an ESA subforum that has a thread with launch schedules. The poster's handle is Salo.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

RAD said:


> Could be there's a lot more realestate work work in with a sub so many different areas can be worked on at the same time.With the satellite even though parts of it are modular there's not a lot of space for a ton of people to be working on it at the same time. Plus things probably get slowed down due to all the clean room precautions that must be taken that aren't needed on most of the sub.


We've delivered 6 subs in a year and Newport News has built an aircraft carrier is same time it'll take to build DIRECTV 14...just sayin' :grin:

After thinking about it, I suspect the timeline gives a long lead time to procure and install the sub-systems spreading the capital costs over four years.

I'll bet, given the components, they could build the satellite in a few months.

Mike


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Absent an OTARD compliant antenna, what good will it be? Even wealthy subscribers are limited to the protections provided by OTARD.


I have not seen anything that would suggest a larger reflector would be needed. Have you? If you haven't then you're just fueling FUD.


----------



## James Long

Mike Bertelson said:


> We've delivered 6 subs in a year and Newport News has built an aircraft carrier is same time it'll take to build DIRECTV 14...just sayin' :grin:


If you make a mistake they can bring it back into the shop. It is a little harder to get a satellite back it a problem is found after it is launched. The owners just have to live with the error and look to the next satellite.


----------



## bobnielsen

harsh said:


> Absent an OTARD compliant antenna, what good will it be? Even wealthy subscribers are limited to the protections provided by OTARD.


I don't know what percentage of Directv customers are constrained by OTARD (I'm certainly not), but also I haven't seen anything that suggests a larger dish would be required. It should not be too hard to construct a feedhorn with sufficient bandwidth to cover both KA-hi and BSS bands and adding a diplexer to the feed assembly to separate the bands would seem to be quite doable (FWIW, I do have experience in the technology involved).


----------



## HoTat2

bobnielsen said:


> I don't know what percentage of Directv customers are constrained by OTARD (I'm certainly not), but also I haven't seen anything that suggests a larger dish would be required.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct;
> 
> If the current dish dimensions can acceptably receive both the Ka (18.3-20.2 GHz) and Ku (12.2 to 12.7 GHz) bands, then there is no reason the RDBS band roughly in the center at 17.3-17.7 GHz can't be acceptably received as well.
> 
> ... It should not be too hard to construct a feedhorn with sufficient bandwidth to cover both KA-hi and BSS bands ,,,
Click to expand...

Yes, as we're only talking about 1 additional GHz from 17.3-20.2 GHz instead of present 18.3-20.2 GHz. How hard can that be to engineer?

Assuming of course that the current feedhorn dimensions are not already sufficient. 



> ... and adding a diplexer to the feed assembly to separate the bands would seem to be quite doable (FWIW, I do have experience in the technology involved).


Again, much agreed;

Then once separated say a simple scheme to convert the RDBS band down to some point above 2150 MHz on the 99/101 trunk lines 1 and 2 for RB-1 and the 103/110/119; 103/119 lines 3 and 4 for the future RB-2 seems most doable.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

TL,DR
Is there a launch schedule?


----------



## HoTat2

SPACEMAKER said:


> TL,DR
> Is there a launch schedule?


Not much released beyond the official FCC filings ...

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/170004-directv-satellite-discussion-d14-up-next/?p=3147380

Addendum: Well ... here's a brief mention of D14's launch expectancy from the Arianespace Launch Schedule for 2014 on the nasaspaceflight.com site harsh referenced earlier;



> "early - DirecTV 14 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3"


 Which I assume means a launch "early" in 2014, aboard an Ariane 5 ECA (French lettering for "Cryotechnic Main Stage") rocket. From "Kourou," in French Guiana at ELA-3 (French lettering for Ariane Launch Area 3).


----------



## LameLefty

Mike Bertelson said:


> I don't really understand the time line. How can it take 4-ish years to construct a satellite? It's a modular platform they've been building for over 25 years.
> 
> We construct and deliver two Virginia Class Submarines in that amount of time. I bet the basic platform is constructed ahead of time and is waiting for a final decision on the broadcasting equipment. There's got to be a lot of time spent waiting, otherwise how could it take 4 to build?
> 
> Mike


Re the timeline - it doesn't take 4 years to assemble a satellite presuming you have all the parts in hand, on the cleanroom floor, at the time you start building, and presuming you take the absolute minimum time to verify and test and certify each production step along the way. However none of those presumptions is accurate. I would bet a good deal of money that "manufacturing start date" is a milestone that matters about as much as "laying the keel" on a battleship (e.g., "not very much.") Weld the first two members of the bus spaceframe and you've "started manufacturing."

As for comparison with your subs, I'm pretty sure your employer has a much bigger budget to work with, along with the attendant logistical supply chain infrastructure, than does any satellite manufacturer these days (LMSC may have had comparable resources to work with back in the day during the heyday of the GAMBIT, HEXAGON, and Keyhole programs). Furthermore, your boats get sea trials and periodic refits and port time - once a comsat goes up, that's it. It's gotta work right, the first time and pretty much every time, for 15 years, without servicing, physical upgrades, repairs, refits or replenishment of consumables, 22,300 miles from "port."


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> I have not seen anything that would suggest a larger reflector would be needed. Have you? If you haven't then you're just fueling FUD.


If they can't come up with an LNB that will do both Ku and RDBS _simultaneously_, it seems obvious that two separate LNBs would be required. DIRECTV has patented a setup for Ka and Ku but it depends entirely on the band separation of the signals that won't be available with DIRECTV 14.

Do you have any theories on a solution?

The radio wave physics governing this haven't changed recently.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> If they can't come up with an LNB that will do both Ku and RDBS _simultaneously_, it seems obvious that two separate LNBs would be required. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Who says they can't come up with one?
> 
> Just because they haven't revealed it to us publicly yet proves that they can't come up with one?
> 
> ... DIRECTV has patented a setup for Ka and Ku but it depends entirely on the band separation of the signals that won't be available with DIRECTV 14.
> 
> Do you have any theories on a solution?
> 
> The radio wave physics governing this haven't changed recently.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with my post #723 as well as bobnielson's comments in post #722 as very feasible solutions for a single Ka/Ku/RDBS LNB?


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> If they can't come up with an LNB that will do both Ku and RDBS _simultaneously_, it seems obvious that two separate LNBs would be required. DIRECTV has patented a setup for Ka and Ku but it depends entirely on the band separation of the signals that won't be available with DIRECTV 14.


Wow ... if only someone would come up with a design where two LNBs could share the same feedhorn. That would be amazing. Imagine what it would have been like to have C and Ku band reception on a BUD using the same feedhorn 25 years ago. Imaging what it would be like to have two band reception in the same LNB assembly on a DISH "Plus" dish (used to receive 119 and 118.7 on the same OTARD compliant antenna). Or the current Ka / Ku DirecTV LNBs on OTARD compliant antennas? Combining LNBs is standard practice in 2013.

Sorry, but I do not share your fear uncertainty and doubt. Especially when it comes to comments such as you made about a dish receiving RDBS not being OTARD compliant. It is time to back your claim with facts - not speculation.

What about RDBS and needing a different LNB would make the dish not be a "OTARD compliant antenna"?

Hint: A larger LNB does not stop an antenna from being OTARD compliant.


----------



## P Smith

James, I have the combo C and Ku Chapparel LNBF  it's has common feedhorn


----------



## HoTat2

And like I said, you're only talking about .6-1 GHz away from the lower edge of the Ka-lo band.

For that matter, the current Ka band feedhorn dimensions on the Slimlines are likely sufficient to receive the RDBS band..


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> James, I have the combo C and Ku Chapparel LNBF  it's has common feedhorn


And the difference in wavelength between C and Ku is?

The good book says C-band is about three times the wavelength of Ku. The wavelength for Ku is about 23.6mm versus something short of 75mm for C-band. Now comparing Ku at 23.6mm and RDBS at 17.4mm, those aren't nearly as diverse.

Multiple frequency designs typically depend on a decisive difference in wavelength. Those antennae are getting pretty near in size.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> And the difference in wavelength between C and Ku is?
> 
> The good book says C-band is about three times the wavelength of Ku. The wavelength for Ku is about 23.6mm versus something short of 75mm for C-band. Now comparing Ku at 23.6mm and RDBS at 17.4mm, those aren't nearly as diverse.
> 
> Multiple frequency designs typically depend on a decisive difference in wavelength. Those antennae are getting pretty near in size.


Well harsh

As an example in Latin America DIRECTV is presently deploying a new dual band LNB to their subscribers that can receive a new 10.95-11.2 GHz band which is only 250 MHz lower than their usual 11.450-12.2 GHz one. And the two bands are apparently separated and directed in their received gigahertz range to two different receiver circuits. One with a 10.5 GHz L.O. and the other with a 13.1 GHz L.O.

So with the RDBS band at 600-1000 MHz below the Ka-lo band, it should be well within the state of the art to design such frequency separation circuits for the somewhat higher 17/18 GHz frequency range. .


----------



## LameLefty

Here is a good summary of the entirety of the last few pages (specifically the "contributions" of one person in particular who routinely dogs the Directv threads):

*"A little information is a dangerous thing."*

Fortunately, real spacecraft and RF engineers generally know what they're doing these days. A few minutes with Google and Wikipedia doesn't make up for the fundamental lack of education. Fortunately, there are some folks who DO know this stuff in very great detail who are willing to keep the thread informative and factual.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Multiple frequency designs typically depend on a decisive difference in wavelength.
> near in size.


DISH 118.7 and 119 are adjacent Ku bands. Same LNBF package.

118.0W TP1 11.71475 R - 118.0W TP32 12.18525 L
119.0W TP1 12.22400 R - 119.0W TP21 12.51560 R

Typically those in the industry can figure these things out. RDBS isn't that far away.


----------



## Diana C

A couple of random comments:

On the timeline question...the majority of the delay is waiting for the launch vehicle...it makes little sense to build and then store the satellite. So construction is timed so that testing is complete when they are ready to ship to the launch pad for vehicle integration.

On RDBS, why assume that the plan is Ka, RDBS and Ku? Why not *substitute *RDBS for legacy Ku? You could eliminate all the SD duplicates on 101, leaving room for some additional HD. That way, Ku becomes the legacy system for SD viewers, and Ka/RDBS is the HD viewer only platform. This would also only require a LNB swap, which could be done at any pace they desire.


----------



## HoTat2

Diana C said:


> ... On RDBS, why assume that the plan is Ka, RDBS and Ku? Why not *substitute *RDBS for legacy Ku? You could eliminate all the SD duplicates on 101, leaving room for some additional HD. That way, Ku becomes the legacy system for SD viewers, and Ka/RDBS is the HD viewer only platform. This would also only require a LNB swap, which could be done at any pace they desire.


Could you rephrase this?

I don't understand the suggestion here ...

EDIT: Never mind, After meditating on this, I understand now. An interesting idea;

Develop a duel 99/103 Ka/RDBS LNB and only mirror SD channels from 101 which have no HD versions on Ka over to the RDBS band on satellites at 99 or 103 to create a predominately "HD viewer" service. 

You would need to supply an EPG and SI data stream over the RDBS band on either of those slots as well. and since RDBS only uses CONUS beam transponders, any markets with spot-beamed SD locals on 101 or 119 without HD versions would be lost, but that should be comparatively few nowadays.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> DISH 118.7 and 119 are adjacent Ku bands. Same LNBF package.
> 
> 118.0W TP1 11.71475 R - 118.0W TP32 12.18525 L
> 119.0W TP1 12.22400 R - 119.0W TP21 12.51560 R
> 
> Typically those in the industry can figure these things out. RDBS isn't that far away.


Those frequencies are probably be close enough to be picked up on the same antenna.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> Why not *substitute *RDBS for legacy Ku?


Because there are still a lot of unsuitable dishes out there? Transitioning to RDBS would almost certainly require conversion of the entire ODU (including the mounting plate) as opposed to just the LNB assembly as you suggest.

RDBS probably suffers similar aiming sensitivities as Ka when applied to mobile users.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> Fortunately, there are some folks who DO know this stuff in very great detail who are willing to keep the thread informative and factual.


And when are these folks going to demonstrate their willingness?


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Those frequencies are probably be close enough to be picked up on the same antenna.


Huh?  

Your claim back in post #732 was that multi-frequency dish antenna designs depend on the band wavelengths being sufficiently diverse.

Well not so, as in addition to the example I posted there's even a better case here of the dish 500/1000+ with two bands right beside and thus very close to one another, yet the LNB can still sufficiently separate them. The 12.2-12.7 GHz Ku BSS band is then directed to a receive circuit with a 11.250 GHz L.O. (14.350 GHz L.O. for the DPP upper block). And the 11.7-12.2 GHz Ku FSS band to a receive circuit with a 10.750 GHz L.O. (13.850 GHz L.O. for the DPP upper block).

So what's your point now?


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Because there are still a lot of unsuitable dishes out there? Transitioning to RDBS would almost certainly require conversion of the entire ODU (including the mounting plate) as opposed to just the LNB assembly as you suggest. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why?
> 
> If the current 32.5" x 22.5" Slimlines already acceptably receive both the Ka and Ku bands, then how can they not well receive the RDBS band spectrum located between the two?
> 
> .... RDBS probably suffers similar aiming sensitivities as Ka when applied to mobile users.
Click to expand...

The point is since RB-1 and RB-2 are to be co-located with 99 and 103, the RDBS alignment can't be anymore different or sensitive than the Ka band, and is likely somewhat less due to its lower frequency.

So if the Ka alignment is peaked correctly the RDBS must follow and be peaked as well.


----------



## cypherx

How do you think RDBS will handle rain fade? Similar, better or worse than Ka band?


----------



## bobnielsen

cypherx said:


> How do you think RDBS will handle rain fade? Similar, better or worse than Ka band?


It should be similar to Ka, possibly slightly better.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Those frequencies are probably be close enough to be picked up on the same antenna.





harsh said:


> Multiple frequency designs typically depend on a decisive difference in wavelength.


So a few days ago there needed to be a "decisive difference" and now the bands are "close enough"? :eek2:

BTW: Thanks for accepting that the frequencies "probably" could be picked up on the same antenna. I happen to own that antenna. DISH has been selling them for years. There is absolutely no "probably" about it.


----------



## HoTat2

James Long said:


> So a few days ago there needed to be a "decisive difference" and now the bands are "close enough"? :eek2:
> 
> BTW: Thanks for accepting that the frequencies "probably" *could be picked up on the same antenna.* I happen to own that antenna. DISH has been selling them for years. There is absolutely no "probably" about it.


Though I think technically speaking, the two bands really wouldn't be picked up by the same "antenna." Since the dish is not actually an antenna, but an RF reflector. The "antennas" (note, plural in this case) are really a small pickup probes protruding into the rear portion of a short section of waveguide which serves as the feedhorn mouth on front end. One antenna pick up probe is needed for each band.


----------



## bobnielsen

HoTat2 said:


> Though I think technically speaking, the two bands really wouldn't be picked up by the same "antenna." Since the dish is not actually an antenna, but an RF reflector. The "antennas" (note, plural in this case) are really a small pickup probes protruding into the rear portion of a short section of waveguide which serves as the feedhorn mouth on front end. One antenna pick up probe is needed for each band.


I doubt it. Such a probe is typically located a quarter-wavelength from a shorted end of the waveguide and it would be difficult to locate two of them very close to each other without each interfering with the other.


----------



## P Smith

last models of LNBF using probes etched on PCB ... not sure how that 118.75W/110W combo made, perhaps I would dismantle one. Is someone has it broken ?


----------



## James Long

HoTat2 said:


> Though I think technically speaking, the two bands really wouldn't be picked up by the same "antenna." Since the dish is not actually an antenna, but an RF reflector. The "antennas" (note, plural in this case) are really a small pickup probes protruding into the rear portion of a short section of waveguide which serves as the feedhorn mouth on front end. One antenna pick up probe is needed for each band.


Since his statement of FUD was that a dish receiving RDBS would not be protected under OTARD I'll stick with the FCC definition of antenna: "... video antennas including direct-to-home satellite dishes that are less than one meter (39.37") in diameter ..."

I have seen nothing that proves that a RDBS receive apparatus (avoiding the "a" word) cannot be constructed within the bounds of OTARD protection.



harsh said:


> Absent an OTARD compliant antenna, what good will it be? Even wealthy subscribers are limited to the protections provided by OTARD.


There is still no proof that an RDBS antenna will not be "OTARD compliant".


----------



## Diana C

Seems to me that a little outside the box thinking leads to a number of ways to skin the "two bands at one feedhorn" cat. For example, the Ku antenna ("antenna" being used in the strictest sense - the device that converts a microwave radio signal into an electrical signal) could use a metamaterial design that acts as an antenna to Ku frequencies, but is transparent to RDBS frequencies (and so the RDBS antenna could be behind the Ku). Or a similar metamaterial approach could be used to reflect or deflect one frequency band to a different focal point than the other. Metamaterials are used today in the "Flat Dish" designs.

Of course, the simplest macro level design approach would be interleave the two antennas (although that calls for a more complicated circuit design). That way, they could both sit at the same spot in the feedhorn. (see next post)

I don't see any reason why a RDBS ODU would not be within the OTARD limit of one meter. The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength, and therefore the greater the gain of a given size reflector. This is why Ka works with an 20-something inch reflector, despite having poorer propogation characteristics in atmosphere than Ku...the reflector provides more gain at Ka frequencies than it does at Ku. Unless RDBS was transmitted at lower power (under 100 watts) I don't see why it would need more gain than current dish sizes provide.


----------



## Diana C

In this photo of a disassembled LNB, you can see the two probes (at 0 and 270 degrees) used to recieve the two signal polarities. Why not simply add probes at 90 and 180 degrees, and tune these to RDBS frequencies?


----------



## HoTat2

They could;

Those "antenna" probes included in the Ka feedhorns could then feed separate receive circuits with a L.O. to down-convert RB-1's RDBS band at 99w likely somewhere above 2150 MHz where it could be combined on trunk lines 1 and 2 with the current 99/101 even and odd signals respectively.

And for whatever future satellite carries the RB-2 payload at 103 (possibly D15?), the Ka/Ku/RDBS LNB could place the down-converted RDBS band above 2150 MHz on trunk lines 3 and 4 along with the 103/110 (If an SL5)/119 even and 103/119 odd signals respectively.


----------



## P Smith

This one is more advanced LNBF board


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> In this photo of a disassembled LNB, you can see the two probes (at 0 and 270 degrees) used to recieve the two signal polarities. Why not simply add probes at 90 and 180 degrees, and tune these to RDBS frequencies?


In simple terms, I think the antennae you're looking at are designed for linear polarity (horizontal and vertical) and what DISH and DIRECTV use is typically circular polarity.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> I have seen nothing that proves that a RDBS receive apparatus (avoiding the "a" word) cannot be constructed within the bounds of OTARD protection.
> 
> There is still no proof that an RDBS antenna will not be "OTARD compliant".


Nor has anyone produced any examples of a single LNB that receives the bands in question. If there is one, it is certainly possible. If they need two entirely separate LNBs, the dish would need to be multifocal.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> So a few days ago there needed to be a "decisive difference" and now the bands are "close enough"? :eek2:


The dish bands are adjacent in this case and of the same broadcast power. I'm pretty sure you can say that about Ku and RDBS.


> BTW: Thanks for accepting that the frequencies "probably" could be picked up on the same antenna. I happen to own that antenna. DISH has been selling them for years. There is absolutely no "probably" about it.


When I say antenna, I mean the antenna in the feed horn, not the whole dish. If I had been referring to the dish, I would have said dish.

I don't think it is reasonable to compare a Ku - Ku combination to a Ku - RDBS combination as you're holding up as an example.


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> Nor has anyone produced any examples of a single LNB that receives the bands in question. If there is one, it is certainly possible. If they need two entirely separate LNBs, the dish would need to be multifocal.


If there is one, do you think Directv would necessarily be displaying it publicly? Why would they go through the time and expense of developing RDBS if they didn't already have a way of implementing it? Just for fun?


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> In simple terms, I think the antennae you're looking at are designed for linear polarity (horizontal and vertical) and what DISH and DIRECTV use is typically circular polarity.


There are still two probes...circular polarity is received the same way vertical and horizontal polarity is received, it simply eliminates the need to rotate the feed horn to align the antennas with the signal. The probes align at any point.

In fact, with circular polarity you could theoretically mount any number of probes and do Ka, Ku and RDBS with one LNB (although you would likely lose some waveguide efficiency).


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Nor has anyone produced any examples of a single LNB that receives the bands in question. If there is one, it is certainly possible ...
> 
> 
> 
> That's perfectly understandable given that DIRECTV is really the only one at present actively deploying RDBS systems. So where else would one expect to find such an LNB to offer as examples except for waiting on DIRECTV's version to be released to the public?
> .
> ... If they need two entirely separate LNBs, the dish would need to be multifocal.
Click to expand...

They don't have to be separate LNBs and the present Slimline dish has an "integrated" Ka/Ku LNB and its multi-focal as would be the same dish with a future Ka/Ku/RDBS integrated LNB.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> In simple terms, I think the antennae you're looking at are designed for linear polarity (horizontal and vertical) and what DISH and DIRECTV use is typically circular polarity.


From my understanding, circularly polarized LNBFs use some type of dielectric material (teflon perhaps?) inside the feedhorn that converts the CP signals into H/V linear ones for reception by linear probes at right angles like the ones DianaC posted.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> The dish bands are adjacent in this case and of the same broadcast power. I'm pretty sure you can say that about Ku and RDBS.When I say antenna, I mean the antenna in the feed horn, not the whole dish. If I had been referring to the dish, I would have said dish. ...
> 
> 
> 
> But the end result is the same;
> 
> Even if the same antenna pickup probes are used to receive both the BSS and FSS portions of the Ku band, they can still be acceptably separated to different receive circuits despite their closeness in frequency.
> 
> ... I don't think it is reasonable to compare a Ku - Ku combination to a Ku - RDBS combination as you're holding up as an example.
Click to expand...

If it can be done on Ku with the bands much closer this way, why is it not well technically possible only 5-6 GHz up to separate the RDBS band at 17.3-17.7 GHz from the Ka-lo band beginning at a much greater than the Ku example, 600 MHz, away at 18.3-18.8 GHz?


----------



## LameLefty

Diana C said:


> A couple of random comments:
> 
> On the timeline question...the majority of the delay is waiting for the launch vehicle...it makes little sense to build and then store the satellite. So construction is timed so that testing is complete when they are ready to ship to the launch pad for vehicle integration.


Well, it's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem. Back in the 60's, the US and USSR were launching dozens of payloads a year, sometimes even dozens a month. The launch vehicles were bering cranked out like LEGOs, the ranges and tracking assets fully developed and crewed and things were really hopping. The civilian launch market doesn't work nearly as quickly but there's still plenty of excess production capacity. If the payload market for commercial launches was robust enough they could easily staff up to build and launch more vehicles. As it is, there's just no need to rush through the process like that anymore. Payloads are longer-lasting and much more expensive, which actually puts negative pressure on the launch rate - each bird costs so much and is expected to last so long, it's better to take 3+ years to do the whole thing right than accept the risks of speeding up.

But speaking of speeding up, it will be interesting to see the Investor Relations slides in the next year or two as the legacy 101 Ku fleet starts to show its age. This was mentioned a year or so ago, along with predicted lifespans; I would expect Directv to file some stuff with the FCC over the next 6 - 12 months in order to get the ball rolling on replacements.



harsh said:


> And when are these folks going to demonstrate their willingness?


They've been doing so for years. Pay better attention.


----------



## P Smith

harsh said:


> In simple terms, I think the antennae you're looking at are designed for linear polarity (horizontal and vertical) and what DISH and DIRECTV use is typically circular polarity.


I did post for you perhaps, right above your post, a PCB of dish DP LNBF (CIRCULAR)


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> From my understanding, circularly polarized LNBFs use some type of dielectric material (teflon perhaps?) inside the feedhorn that converts the CP signals into H/V linear ones for reception by linear probes at right angles like the ones DianaC posted.


That LNBF (what PCB I posted) does have depolarizer in waveguide tube, it's actually a 'triangle' metal rib like a ladder.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> That LNBF (what PCB I posted) does have depolarizer in waveguide tube, it's actually a 'triangle' metal rib like a ladder.


Thanks; 

Wikipedia called it a "dielectric" material, but anyway the point is a component in the waveguide feed tube acts as a depolarizer to convert the incoming CP waves into linear ones for reception by H/V linear antenna probes.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> When I say antenna, I mean the antenna in the feed horn, not the whole dish. If I had been referring to the dish, I would have said dish.


Then your mention of OTARD was entirely wrong. Anyways, I look forward to DirecTV introducing the LNBF package needed to receive RDBS along side their other frequency bands.


----------



## harsh

studechip said:


> If there is one, do you think Directv would necessarily be displaying it publicly?


If it represents additional bandwidth, they might.


> Why would they go through the time and expense of developing RDBS if they didn't already have a way of implementing it?


As I've already suggested, the RDBS payload might be used for something other than residential TV service.

It is folly to assume that if something exists, they have an obvious plan for it and it will certainly benefit everyone. In this case, DIRECTV was on the bubble to occupy the slot to a certain extent.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Then your mention of OTARD was entirely wrong.


Not if they can't pull off a combination feed horn. If they need two horns to pick up the same slot and if both of them are in or near the Ka band, you're likely looking at a rather large multifocal dish.


> Anyways, I look forward to DirecTV introducing the LNBF package needed to receive RDBS along side their other frequency bands.


It would be very important, if not imperative if the band is to be used for residential service.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> They've been doing so for years. Pay better attention.


Where did they share their training and experience in this thread?


----------



## studechip

studechip said:


> If there is one, do you think Directv would necessarily be displaying it publicly? Why would they go through the time and expense of developing RDBS if they didn't already have a way of implementing it? Just for fun?





harsh said:


> If it represents additional bandwidth, they might.As I've already suggested, the RDBS payload might be used for something other than residential TV service.
> 
> It is folly to assume that if something exists, they have an obvious plan for it and it will certainly benefit everyone. In this case, DIRECTV was on the bubble to occupy the slot to a certain extent.





harsh said:


> Where did they share their training and experience in this thread?


Well you certainly have covered about every contingency here. Plenty of room for backtracking.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Not if they can't pull off a combination feed horn. If they need two horns to pick up the same slot and if both of them are in or near the Ka band, you're likely looking at a rather large multifocal dish.It would be very important, if not imperative if the band is to be used for residential service.


The bottom line is that there are MANY ways to "pull off a combination feedhorn" - many of which have already been discussed. Which approach is chosen will depend on exactly what services they deploy on these frequencies and the relative cost of manufacture for each approach. Rather than spending time declaring that it can't be done because it hasn't been done before, it might be more productive to speculate on what uses this capacity might support. It is obvious that these frequencies will be used for SOMETHING - otherwise they wouldn't be spending money on the TWTAs for their satellites.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> If it represents additional bandwidth, they might.As I've already suggested, the RDBS payload might be used for something other than residential TV service.
> 
> 
> 
> Not if its not intended for mainstream service as I've already stated, there's really no great rush with D14/RB-1 still about 10 months away from operational service (by FCC documentation).
> 
> And as for DIRECTV's time schedule for revelation, it may simply still be undergoing testing and evaluation.
> 
> For instance, here's a statement from a long time LNB manufacturer "Norsat International Inc." pertaining to LNB R&D and the selection process considerations in a online "handbook" they publish;
> 
> _ In order to take full advantage of the benefits of the_
> _more digital modulation systems the LNB that is used in_
> _the receiver terminal must be matched to the digital_
> _signal characteristics. From a technical perspective there_
> _are more than fifty individual issues that should be_
> _considered when making an LNB selection: RF leakage,_
> _rejection of transmit signals, inband spurious_
> _performance, out of band spurious performance, long_
> _term aging effects, vibration effects, corrosion resistance,_
> _connector types, intermodulation performance, dynamic_
> _range considerations, environmental effects, reliability_
> _concerns, tolerance to electrostatic discharge... and the_
> _list goes on._
Click to expand...

Granted all these individual considerations probably need not be as stringent for consumer equipment, but still I'm sure must meet them at some acceptance level before moving to mass production and distribution. 


> It is folly to assume that if something exists, they have an obvious plan for it and it will certainly benefit everyone. In this case, DIRECTV was on the bubble to occupy the slot to a certain extent.


To the contrary, it would be complete folly for DIRECTV to have gone all this way in the development of RDBS and not have a well thought out implementation plan to offer it to their subscribers.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Not if they can't pull off a combination feed horn. If they need two horns to pick up the same slot and if both of them are in or near the Ka band, you're likely looking at a rather large multifocal dish.
> 
> 
> 
> And again to repeat;
> 
> Why does it have to be two separate horns? If the current Ka band horns on the Slimline already well span from 18.3 to 20.2 GHz, why is it so inconceivable to see a design span just 1 GHz more on the lower edge from 17.3 to 20.2 GHz?
> ... It would be very important, if not imperative if the band is to be used for residential service.
Click to expand...

I don't recall DIRECTV ever claiming anything different than for residential service in all the documentation submitted to the FCC I've seen regarding the target for RDBS service.

If you know of any other, please post the links, or upload it. I'd be very interested in them.


----------



## HoTat2

And for that matter regarding the assumed need of a new LNB, I'm not willing to totally discount the possibility we all may have missed the boat on this and RDBS receive circuits at 99 and 103 and the necessary SWiM firmware have been there all along in the current Ka/Ku LNBFs and SWiM multiswitches, fed by the same feedhorns, depolarizer, and pickup probes used by the Ka band.

The circuits could have just been essentially dormant all this time since there were no satellite signals for them to receive except from RB-2A in those 4 spotbeam test markets.

If this is the case, then all that's needed is a firmware update to the receivers to tune them by sending the appropriate commands to a SWiM or to receive the 2150+ MHz band signals for legacy installs

Be nice, assuming RB-2A is active, to have someone in the southern Utah, El Paso Tx., Seattle, WA., or Alaska areas with a spectrum analyzer on the output of a Slimline to see if a new band is showing somewhere above 2150 MHz.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> If it represents additional bandwidth, they might.As I've already suggested, the RDBS payload might be used for something other than residential TV service.


Please knock off the argumentative buffoonery. The FCC license is plainly for residential use. These documents have been posted in the past several times, in this thread and in the predecessor technical discussion threads. Please pay attention.



harsh said:


> Where did they share their training and experience in this thread?


They've been sharing their knowledge, which is even better. Unlike you, who keep spreading random FUD-filled comments that have no basis in fact.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> And for that matter regarding the assumed need of a new LNB, I'm not willing to totally discount the possibility we all may have missed the boat on this and RDBS receive circuits at 99 and 103 and the necessary SWiM firmware have been there all along in the current Ka/Ku LNBFs and SWiM multiswitches, fed by the same feedhorns, depolarizer, and pickup probes used by the Ka band.


They would have had to be planning to potentially use the RDBS bands back when they spec'd the KaKu LNB. They designed it to receive from 18.2 to 20.2 GHz, so designing it for a 2 GHz width is obviously possible. Perhaps designing it for a 3 GHz width would not add much cost, and future proof it in case they one day made use of this bandwidth. They'd have to place it above 2150 MHz on the cable, so they'd need cables tested for this. Don't they require cable that's swept tested to 3 GHz? Why do that with a ceiling of 2150 MHz?

If I had to bet, I'd say the current dishes, LNBs, and multiswitches that work with KaKu now will work with the new RDBS satellites without modification. The receivers will receive firmware updates to "see" the new satellites after they're launched, and the average customer won't even know this happened, just that there are more channels with better quality, 4K, more local subchannels or whatever they use all that bandwidth for.

According to this article I found, the first application to use RDBS bands in this way occurred in February 2005, back when the Slimline and KaKu LNBs were still in development and could have been easily future proofed for this new technology. Its not quite clear from the article (I couldn't find the "2002 article" he referenced) whether the DBS allocation scheme from 2002 already included the ability to use RDBS bands and it is just taken this long to get around to it, or if that was only something potential that the FCC still had to approve after the first application in Feb 2005.

http://www.cedmagazine.com/articles/2005/07/dbs%3A-the-questions-are-many


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> They would have had to be planning to potentially use the RDBS bands back when they spec'd the KaKu LNB. They designed it to receive from 18.2 to 20.2 GHz, so designing it for a 2 GHz width is obviously possible. Perhaps designing it for a 3 GHz width would not add much cost, and future proof it in case they one day made use of this bandwidth. They'd have to place it above 2150 MHz on the cable, so they'd need cables tested for this. Don't they require cable that's swept tested to 3 GHz? Why do that with a ceiling of 2150 MHz? ...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I think it can, and I base my assumption that RG-6 cable can handle the 3 GHz upper limit just fine since Dish Network is currently using the 2.5 to 3 GHz range for an additional 500 Mhz wide DPP frequency block to supply the third tuner over a single RG-6 coax run to their Hopper.
> 
> ... If I had to bet, I'd say the current dishes, LNBs, and multiswitches that work with KaKu now will work with the new RDBS satellites without modification. The receivers will receive firmware updates to "see" the new satellites after they're launched, and the average customer won't even know this happened, just that there are more channels with better quality, 4K, more local subchannels or whatever they use all that bandwidth for.
Click to expand...

That's personally the direction I'm leaning towards myself. That the capability, hardware-wise at least, has always been there. I mean I realize other very knowledgeable posters here in the past have claimed it isn't in the current installed base of LNBFs and SWiM switches. And others have even published photographs of the internal view of the Ka/Ku LNBF. But unless we can see the actual schematic diagrams of the LNBF to know for sure, and DIRECTV is not about to publish those due to corporate confidentiality, there's no way to be "absolutely" sure the capability isn't there.


----------



## P Smith

If the LNBF is capable to get RDBS' range AND some sats at 99W or 103W transmitting the signal, we should see it.
The main question if the KaKu LNBF block has _third_ LOF to get the IF signal in a range say 2.35...2.75 GHz?

As we're knew LOF2 for current Ka ranges is 18.05 GHz, so using it for different range (RDBS is still Ku) would produce overlapping signal in IF signals [350 MHz...750 MHz] to Ka-Lo.

Using LOF1=11.25 GHz would not do the required transposing as it will end-up at not usable range 5.05...5.45 GHz


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> If the LNBF is capable to get RDBS' range AND some sats at 99W or 103W transmitting the signal, we should see it.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, but all we have right now P Smith, assuming its even activated and transmitting, is the RB-2A payload on D12, spot-beamed to those 4 four test markets.
> 
> Anybody with a SA connected to a Slimline in any of those markets want to check for a new band of signals above 2150 MHz?
> 
> ... The main question if the KaKu LNBF block has _third_ LOF to get the IF signal in a range say 2.35...2.75 GHz?
Click to expand...

That's my guess;

The RDBS L.O. would have to be around 14.95 GHz..



> ... As we're knew LOF2 for current Ka ranges is 18.05 GHz, so using it for different range (RDBS is still Ku) would produce overlapping signal in IF signals [350 MHz...750 MHz] to Ka-Lo.


Correct, it would have to be a another L.O., not the same 18.05 GHz one used for the Ka band.



> Using LOF1=*12*.25 GHz would not do the required transposing as it will end-up at not usable range 5.05...5.45 GHz


I think you meant "11.25" GHz for LOF1 

But to summarize for a prospective Ka/Ku/RDBS LNBF;

Ku 101 and 119 L.O. = 11.25 GHz

Ku 110 L.O. (SL-5) = 11.542 GHz

Ka 99 and 103 L.O. = 18.05 GHz

RDBS 99 and 103 L.O. = 14,95 GHz?


----------



## Diana C

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah I think it can, and I base my assumption that RG-6 cable can handle the 3 GHz upper limit just fine since Dish Network is currently using the 2.5 to 3 GHz range for an additional 500 Mhz wide DPP frequency block to supply the third tuner over a single RG-6 coax run to their Hopper.


And, of course, this is only an issue for the cable from the LNB to the SWiM (assuming we are even talking about an external SWiM). The output of the SWiM is always in the 950 - 2150MHz range, regardless of the input.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> They designed it to receive from 18.2 to 20.2 GHz, so designing it for a 2 GHz width is obviously possible.


So you don't think it is a stretch to extend all the way to 3GHz?


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> So you don't think it is a stretch to extend all the way to 3GHz?


No, not at all;

All the way down into the Ku band perhaps is.

The feed horn tube is just a short run waveguide, which is like a transmission line for microwave energy. And like all transmission lines it has no sharp cut off above or below the bandwidth it was designed for, but gradually tappers off on either end. So 1 additional Ghz shouldn't be a problem.

And again, for all we know the Ka band feedhorn dimensions may have even been designed that way from the beginning with the future RDBS band in mind, to have a lower frequency cut-off somewhere well below 17.3 GHz.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> The feed horn tube is just a short run waveguide, which is like a transmission line for microwave energy.


The question isn't so much about the feedhorn, but the antenna(e) that are mounted near the end of that horn to receive the signals.


----------



## P Smith

harsh said:


> The question isn't so much about the feedhorn, but the antenna(e) that are mounted near the end of that horn to receive the signals.


OK.

Then take a look into 99/101/103 LNBF combo's RF probes ... or if dish is more friendly for you, DP500+'s combo LNBF with 118/119 FSS/DBS RF probes.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> The question isn't so much about the feedhorn, but the antenna(e) that are mounted near the end of that horn to receive the signals.


Well to receive the present 18.3-20.2 GHz Ka band, the probes' bandwidth to center frequency ratio is already around 10%. Add the RDBS band makes it about 16%.

Is only a 6% increase unfeasible?


----------



## bobnielsen

HoTat2 said:


> Well to receive the present 18.3-20.2 GHz Ka band, the probes' bandwidth to center frequency ratio is already around 10%. Add the RDBS band makes it about 16%.
> 
> Is only a 6% increase unfeasible?


Probably not. Standard waveguide bands (including horns) cover much wider percentage bandwidths.


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> Then take a look into 99/101/103 LNBF combo's RF probes ... or if dish is more friendly for you, DP500+'s combo LNBF with 118/119 FSS/DBS RF probes.


Do you have any pictures of the innards of a SL3 LNB that show the arrangement is between the antennae? I'm thinking the separation in orbital slots has an impact.


----------



## harsh

bobnielsen said:


> Probably not. Standard waveguide bands (including horns) cover much wider percentage bandwidths.


As I said previously, I'm considerably more concerned with the antennae that the waveguide feeds and how they are arranged given the closer relationship between the wavelengths.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> As I said previously, I'm considerably more concerned with the antennae that the waveguide feeds and how they are arranged given the closer relationship between the wavelengths.


Ah...but doesn't the fact that the satellite signal IS circular polarity mean that the only requirement is that the probes for LHCP and RHCP be 180 degrees apart? As I understand it, and I'm sure one of the RF engineers will correct me if I'm wrong, this means that even if the Ka probes can't pick up RDBS frequencies (something that is not a given), an LNB could easily have 2 pairs of probes, say with Ka at 0 and 180 and RDBS at 90 and 270. Theoretically, as long as the waveguide can focus the beam, you can have as many pairs of probes as needed. The only limit is really the size of the probes and how many can fit within the focal point (and the cost).


----------



## HoTat2

Whew .... :blink:

Well ... just about every horn antenna design tutorial and analysis I can locate online seems to descend into the deep depths of mathematical hell, but the best I can surmise is that the pickup probes used in a "Choke Feedhorn" antenna, which is the actual type of feedhorn largely used by home satellite dishes, based on it's width to height ratio and proper distance from the short circuit wall at the back of waveguide, generally has a bandwidth of around 20% of the center frequency of operation.

So again, the current Ka band probes should be sufficient for the nearby RDBS band as well.


----------



## harsh

As HoTat2 points out, different frequencies are optimal at different distances with respect to the short circuit wall.

If having optimal antenna element lengths and spacing weren't important, our OTA antennas would surely all be simple dipoles.


----------



## James Long

HoTat2 said:


> So again, the current Ka band probes should be sufficient for the nearby RDBS band as well.





harsh said:


> As HoTat2 points out, different frequencies are optimal at different distances with respect to the short circuit wall.


I suppose if you have your mind set on a certain opinion any post could be twisted to be considered supportive of your side of an argument ... but your assertion that RDBS cannot be received on an OTARD compliant dish is not supported.



harsh said:


> If having optimal antenna element lengths and spacing weren't important, our OTA antennas would surely all be simple dipoles.


Leave antenna and LNB design to the experts. I'm sure they will come up with something that works. Whether or not you or I or anyone else here understands why it works is not the issue. The experts will figure it out.


----------



## veryoldschool

James Long said:


> Leave antenna and LNB design to the experts.


I'm not one, play one on TV, or stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night, "but" I've worked with waveguide and know a bit about signals.
With the current configuration, expanding Ka-hi usage above 20.2 GHz looks to be where the RDBS will be, using the 2150- 3000(?) MHz output of the LNB.
I "suspect" DirecTV has already designed for this.


----------



## HoTat2

veryoldschool said:


> I'm not one, play one on TV, or stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night, "but" I've worked with waveguide and know a bit about signals.
> With the current configuration, expanding Ka-hi usage above 20.2 GHz looks to be where the RDBS will be, using the 2150- 3000(?) MHz output of the LNB.


Or maybe better described as extending below the Ka-lo band to 17.3 GHz for reception and above the Ka-hi band range for LNB conversion, placing it somewhere between 2150-3000 MHz?



> ... I "suspect" DirecTV has already designed for this


So do I ...


----------



## veryoldschool

HoTat2 said:


> Or maybe better described as extending below the Ka-lo band to 17.3 GHz for reception and above the Ka-hi band range for LNB conversion, placing it somewhere between 2150-3000 MHz?
> 
> So do I ...


To extend Ka-lo would require being below 15.9 GHz, which isn't likely due to the cutoff of the waveguide. Waveguide doesn't "roll off" like coax, so extending Ka-hi is much more reasonable.


----------



## HoTat2

veryoldschool said:


> To extend Ka-lo would require being below 15.9 GHz, which isn't likely due to the cutoff of the waveguide. Waveguide doesn't "roll off" like coax, so extending Ka-hi is much more reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CWG.png


Sorry, you've lost me here VOS; 

The downlink frequency band for RDBS (in ITU region 2, the Americas) is 17.3-17.7 GHz, and the current Ka d/l bands extend from 18.3-20.2 GHz. So won't the feedhorn have to cover only a 2.9 GHz span from 17.3-20.2 GHz which I see as totally feasible?

Why does extending 1 additional GHz below the Ka-lo band require going under 15.9 GHz?

And how does extending the Ka-hi receive band currently at 19.7-20.2 GHz, higher going to help receive the RDBS band below at 17.3-17.7 GHz?


----------



## veryoldschool

HoTat2 said:


> Sorry, you've lost me here VOS;
> 
> The downlink frequency band for RDBS (in ITU region 2, the Americas) is 17.3-17.7 GHz, and the current Ka d/l bands extend from 18.3-20.2 GHz. So won't the feedhorn have to cover only a 2.9 GHz span from 17.3-20.2 GHz which I see as totally feasible?
> 
> Why does extending 1 additional GHz below the Ka-lo band require going under 15.9 GHz?
> 
> And how does extending the Ka-hi receive band currently at 19.7-20.2 GHz, higher going to help receive the RDBS band below at 17.3-17.7 GHz?


Currently 17.3 - 17.8 GHz is Ka-lo, with 19.7-20.2 GHz Ka-hi.
Ka-lo is a low side conversion from the 18.05 GHz LO, which means 18.3-18.8 GHz would be the high side and fall into the same 250-750 MHz IF output, so both can't be used.
18.8-19.7 GHz interferes with the Ku output, so it can't be on the same [current] coax.
This leaves two ranges to have the IF above 2.150 MHz: above 20.2 GHz or below 15.9 GHz. [18.050 ± 2.150 GHz]

To use 17.3-17.7 GHz for RDBS, either the currently Ka-lo goes away, or a whole new LNB with another oscillator will be needed.


----------



## HoTat2

veryoldschool said:


> Currently 17.3 - 17.8 GHz is Ka-lo, with 19.7-20.2 GHz Ka-hi.
> Ka-lo is a low side conversion from the 18.05 GHz LO, which means 18.3-18.8 GHz would be the high side and fall into the same 250-750 MHz IF output, so both can't be used.
> 18.8-19.7 GHz interferes with the Ku output, so it can't be on the same [current] coax.
> This leaves two ranges to have the IF above 2.150 MHz: above 20.2 GHz or below 15.9 GHz. [18.050 ± 2.150 GHz]
> 
> To use 17.3-17.7 GHz for RDBS, either the currently Ka-lo goes away, or a whole new LNB with another oscillator will be needed.


OK, I see what you're saying now;

But I can't imagine DIRECTV downlinking on any band other than what their RDBS license is authorized for at 17.3-17.7 GHz, nor would it be permitted.

Otherwise it wouldn't really be "Reverse DBS." 

Anyway, as I wrote earlier in this thread, what I'm guessing is their may be another L.O./mixer/LNA circuit in the current Ka/Ku LNBs which has been dormant up until now such that for example using the same 200 MHz guard band of the current stack after LNB conversion;

Ka bands - 18.05 GHz L.O. = 2150 MHz to 1650 MHz and 750 to 250 MHz

RDBS 17.7 to 17.3 GHz - a 14.95 GHz L.O. = 2750 MHz to 2350 MHz

Otherwise, if such a circuit does not exist in the current base, then yes a new LNB would be required which has it of course.


----------



## veryoldschool

HoTat2 said:


> OK, I see what you're saying now;
> 
> But I can't imagine DIRECTV downlinking on any band other than what their RDBS license is authorized for at 17.3-17.7 GHz, nor would it be permitted.
> 
> Otherwise it wouldn't really be "Reverse DBS."


Thanks for the "Reverse DBS", as I really didn't know what RDBS was, but now you've got me 

Googling comes back with two links dating back to 2006, which seems to be about Ku SATs and their 17 GHz uplink.

http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/newslog/FCC+Seeks+Input+On+Reverse+DBS+Band+Rules.aspx
http://www.cedmagazine.com/articles/2006/07/the-new-dbs-band

Isn't DirecTV already downlinking at 17.3-17.8 GHz for Ka-lo?

I'm not sure we have gathered the whole picture of what's going on.


----------



## HoTat2

veryoldschool said:


> ... Isn't DirecTV already downlinking at 17.3-17.8 GHz for Ka-lo?


No;

DIRECTV is downlinking between 18.3-18.8 GHz for the Ka-lo (or the Ka "B") band. This is then converted by a receiver circuit with a 18.050 GHz L.O. injection in the LNBF to output at 250-750 MHz.

The RDBS band would be coming down from the satellite between 600-1000 MHz below the lower edge of the Ka-lo band at 17.3-17.7 GHz and would need a different receive circuit and L.O. in the LNBF to translate this band somewhere above 2150 MHz.

17.3-17.7 GHz is the same band (less 100 MHz) used for years as the standard Ku band uplink frequencies between 17.3-17.8 GHz for the Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS).

Thus the expression "Reverse DBS" (or RDBS).


----------



## veryoldschool

HoTat2 said:


> No;
> 
> DIRECTV is downlinking between 18.3-18.8 GHz for the Ka-lo (or the Ka "B") band. This is then converted by a receiver circuit with a 18.050 GHz L.O. injection in the LNBF to output at 250-750 MHz.


"Mr Smith" has seen Ka-lo be inverted from Ka-hi, which happens with a low side conversion so "something" isn't tracking.

If the LNB was using a high side conversion for Ka-lo, the 17.3-17.8 RDBS would require another LO.

"Seems like" we might need one of these:


----------



## HoTat2

veryoldschool said:


> "Mr Smith" has seen Ka-lo be inverted from Ka-hi, which happens with a low side conversion so "something" isn't tracking.
> 
> If the LNB was using a high side conversion for Ka-lo, the 17.3-17.8 RDBS would require another LO.


OK, I'll let P. Smith comment to confirm that;

Since from everything I remember reading on the issue in the past, even from P. Smith, was that both the satellite Ka-lo downlink at 18.3-18.8 GHz and Ka-hi at 19.7-20,2 GHz use the same 18.050 GHz L.O. for low side conversion in the LNBF to 250-750 MHz and 1650-2150 MHz respectively.


----------



## P Smith

yes, all Ka LNBFs using just one LOF=18.05GHZ for both Ka ranges,

but for old school tuners (950...2150) DTV made SUP-2400; another converter with a LOF=2.4 GHz to move 250...750 into 1650...2150 with an inversion

wideband tuners just fine for all three L ranges coming from LNBFs: 250...750, 950...1450 and 1650...2150 MHz


----------



## bobnielsen

HoTat2 said:


> OK, I'll let P. Smith comment to confirm that;
> 
> Since from everything I remember reading on the issue in the past, even from P. Smith, was that both the satellite Ka-lo downlink at 18.3-18.8 GHz and Ka-hi at 19.7-20,2 GHz use the same 18.050 GHz L.O. for low side conversion in the LNBF to 250-750 MHz and 1650-2150 MHz respectively.


This brings up something I wondered about a while ago: With RDBS at 17.3 - 17.8, what is there to keep the existing mixer from combining that with the 18.050 L.O. to make a 750 - 250 MHz output which would interfere with Ka-lo? Or does Ka-lo go away, which would allow the 250-750 MHz i.f. to work for RDBS without any new receiving hardware?


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> yes, all Ka LNBFs using just one LOF=18.05GHZ for both Ka ranges,
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation P. Smith, as I thought.
> ... but for old school tuners (950...2150) DTV made SUP-2400; another converter with a LOF=2.4 GHz to move 250...750 into 1650...2150 with an inversion
Click to expand...

And perhaps this might be the past mention of a "Ka-lo band inversion" which VOS is confusing with the what's taking place inside the LNBF. That is, the high side frequency conversion used in a B Band Converter (SUP-2400)? 


> ... wideband tuners just fine for all three L ranges coming from LNBFs: 250...750, 950...1450 and 1650...2150 MHz


Yes, as used in the H/HR23 models I suppose.


----------



## HoTat2

bobnielsen said:


> This brings up something I wondered about a while ago: With RDBS at *17.3 - 17.8*, what is there to keep the existing mixer from combining that with the 18.050 L.O. to make a 750 - 250 MHz output which would interfere with Ka-lo? Or does Ka-lo go away, which would allow the 250-750 MHz i.f. to work for RDBS without any new receiving hardware?


Bob, as with the example cited by James Long earlier in the thread;

For years now the Dish 500+/1000+ LNBFs simultaneously receive two adjacent bands at 11.7-12.2 GHz and 12.2-12.7 GHz from approximately the same orbital slot without mutual interference.

Shouldn't it be possible then to design for sufficient selectivity in the LNBF between the 17.7 and 18.3 GHz band edges in the same manner to prevent such adjacent band interference?

Note: For the CONUS, the RDBS band is only 17.3-17.7 GHz as authorized by the FCC to prevent possible interference to terrestrial microwave systems operating between 17.7-17.8 GHz.


----------



## veryoldschool

HoTat2 said:


> Bob, as with the example cited by James Long earlier in the thread;
> 
> For years now the Dish 500+/1000+ LNBFs simultaneously receive two adjacent bands at 11.7-12.2 GHz and 12.2-12.7 GHz from approximately the same orbital slot without mutual interference.


This doesn't look to be the same, and is more like how I suggested more bandwidth by adding to Ka-hi.

To address Bob's question: image rejection mixers can be used for only one "side band".


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> I suppose if you have your mind set on a certain opinion any post could be twisted to be considered supportive of your side of an argument ... but your assertion that RDBS cannot be received on an OTARD compliant dish is not supported.


You've left out an important consideration in your "they simply must have figured this out" argument. This isn't a discussion of whether RDBS will work with an OTARD dish but whether it can work with a dish assembly that is set up for Ku or Ka from the same or relatively nearby slots.

The experts have been relatively silent on the technical details of how it could be done.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> You've left out an important consideration in your "they simply must have figured this out" argument. This isn't a discussion of whether RDBS will work with an OTARD dish but whether it can work with a dish assembly that is set up for Ku or Ka from the same or relatively nearby slots.
> 
> The experts have been relatively silent on the technical details of how it could be done.


But as I've stated repeatedly harsh;

If the current Slimline Ka/Ku dishes can successfully receive the Ka band on one end of the spectrum, and the Ku band on the other end. Then what technological barrier can popup to prevent receiving the RDBS band somewhere near center of the two?


----------



## P Smith

no barriers here,
we are guessing if RF engineers will make new LNBF with different LOF or we will continue using old LNBF if they will cleanup 250...750 from Ka-Lo signals


----------



## HoTat2

veryoldschool said:


> This doesn't look to be the same, and is more like how I suggested more bandwidth by adding to Ka-hi.


Oh, I agree it's indeed not the same as to the deleterious effect the RDBS band will cause if it manages to reach the Ka band mixer with sufficient signal strength since it falls in the image frequency range of the Ka-lo band.

But I cited it as an example of how good selectivity can be designed into two very nearby microwave RF bands this way to prevent either from entering the receiver circuitry of the other at a sufficient level to cause any sort of significant spurious response.


----------



## bobnielsen

HoTat2 said:


> Bob, as with the example cited by James Long earlier in the thread;
> 
> For years now the Dish 500+/1000+ LNBFs simultaneously receive two adjacent bands at 11.7-12.2 GHz and 12.2-12.7 GHz from approximately the same orbital slot without mutual interference.
> 
> Shouldn't it be possible then to design for sufficient selectivity in the LNBF between the 17.7 and 18.3 GHz band edges in the same manner to prevent such adjacent band interference?
> 
> Note: For the CONUS, the RDBS band is only 17.3-17.7 GHz as authorized by the FCC to prevent possible interference to terrestrial microwave systems operating between 17.7-17.8 GHz.


It's been a while (~50 yrs) since I have designed any microwave filters but the kind of selectivity needed isn't easily achieved in something that will be mass-produced (good grief, I AM getting old).



veryoldschool said:


> This doesn't look to be the same, and is more like how I suggested more bandwidth by adding to Ka-hi.
> 
> To address Bob's question: image rejection mixers can be used for only one "side band".


Image reject mixers would work, but would that have been a design criterion for the existing Ka band LNBFs? I recall seeing some photos of the insides of the Slimline feed assembly several years ago which might provides some insight.


----------



## veryoldschool

For years now the Dish 500+/1000+ LNBFs simultaneously receive two adjacent bands at 11.7-12.2 GHz and 12.2-12.7 GHz from approximately the same orbital slot without mutual interference.


HoTat2 said:


> Oh, I agree it's indeed not the same as to the deleterious effect the RDBS band will cause if it manages to reach the Ka band mixer with sufficient signal strength since it falls in the image frequency range of the Ka-lo band.
> 
> But I cited it as an example of how good selectivity can be designed into two very nearby microwave RF bands this way to prevent either from entering the receiver circuitry of the other at a sufficient level to cause any sort of significant spurious response.


 
I don't know what Dish does, "but" if their LO was 10.7 GHz, the output would be between 1 and 2 GHz.
I don't see this being any different than DirecTV 8 & DirecTV 4S at 101 that makeup the TPs.


----------



## veryoldschool

bobnielsen said:


> It's been a while (~50 yrs) since I have designed any microwave filters but the kind of selectivity needed isn't easily achieved in something that will be mass-produced (good grief, I AM getting old).
> 
> Image reject mixers would work, but would that have been a design criterion for the existing Ka band LNBFs? I recall seeing some photos of the insides of the Slimline feed assembly several years ago which might provides some insight.


"My guess" is that DirecTV isn't using image rejection mixers due to cost, and for the same reason they haven't added another LO for RDBS as if it cost only $1, it would be tens of millions for the LNBs in service, for something that is only in the testing/proving stage.


----------



## HoTat2

veryoldschool said:


> For years now the Dish 500+/1000+ LNBFs simultaneously receive two adjacent bands at 11.7-12.2 GHz and 12.2-12.7 GHz from approximately the same orbital slot without mutual interference.
> 
> 
> I don't know what Dish does, "but" if their LO was 10.7 GHz, the output would be between 1 and 2 GHz.


Well AFAIK the Dish 500+/1000+ use perhaps four L.O.s;

Due to their frequency stacking approach, two (10.75 and 11.25 GHz) using low side conversion for the lower blocks (950-1450 MHz) of the two received bands, and the remaining two (13.850 and 14.350 GHz) to form the upper frequency blocks (1650-2150 MHz), using high side conversion.

But that's beside the point which I was trying to make which was to simply show that two close satellite bands can be successfully received, with each having sufficient out of band rejection of the other to prevent mutual interference, and I see nothing to prevent the same for separating the 17.3-17.7 GHz RDBS band from 18.3-20.2 GHz Ka bands.



> ... I don't see this being any different than DirecTV 8 & DirecTV 4S at 101 that makeup the TPs.


D8, D9S, and D4S, all operate within the same 12.2-12.7 GHz band and are separated into odd and even transponder sets with high isolation by being of both offset frequencies and opposite polarities.

The two adjacent bands received by the Dish 500+/1000+ both use the same odd/even polarity and therefore separation can only be accomplished through their being in different frequency ranges.


----------



## HoTat2

veryoldschool said:


> "My guess" is that DirecTV isn't using image rejection mixers due to cost, and for the same reason they haven't added another LO for RDBS as if it cost only $1, it would be tens of millions for the LNBs in service, for something that is only in the testing/proving stage.


While I can agree a L.O. and other necessary receiver circuitry for the RDBS band may not be in the current LNBFs, but "might" be.

If there is no image rejection type mixer for the Ka band , then how can DIRECTV power up the RB-2A payload on D12 or the upcoming RB-1 on D14 and future RB-2 without interfering with customers' reception of the Ka-lo band?


----------



## HoTat2

bobnielsen said:


> It's been a while (~50 yrs) since I have designed any microwave filters but the kind of selectivity needed isn't easily achieved in something that will be mass-produced (good grief, I AM getting old).
> 
> Image reject mixers would work, but would that have been a design criterion for the existing Ka band LNBFs? ...


As I just asked VOS;

If the Ka band mixers aren't of an image reject type, how can DIRECTV power up any RDBS payloads at 99 and 103 without potential image interference to subscribers Ka-lo band reception?



> ... I recall seeing some photos of the insides of the Slimline feed assembly several years ago which might provides some insight.


They were, and I think they were originally posted by RobertE for a Andrews Ka/Ku SL-5 back in '06 here;

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/58211-a-look-inside-an-andrew-kaku-lnb-not-dialup-friendly/

Unfortunately all the images hosted by Photo Bucket except for 1 I think, have long been removed.


----------



## veryoldschool

HoTat2 said:


> Well AFAIK the Dish 500+/1000+ use perhaps four L.O.s;
> 
> Due to their frequency stacking approach, two (10.75 and 11.25 GHz) using low side conversion for the lower blocks (950-1450 MHz) of the two received bands, and the remaining two (13.850 and 14.350 GHz) to form the upper frequency blocks (1650-2150 MHz), using high side conversion.
> 
> But that's beside the point which I was trying to make which was to simply show that two close satellite bands can be successfully received, with each having sufficient out of band rejection of the other to prevent mutual interference, and I see nothing to prevent the same for separating the 17.3-17.7 GHz RDBS band from 18.3-20.2 GHz Ka bands.


You've got me more  with your "Well AFAIK the Dish 500+/1000+" as not much makes sense, but since "the point" was about the SAT downlink, 17.3-17.7 GHz and 18.3-20.2 GHz aren't any problem.
"The problem comes" when you're trying to use a 18.050 GHz LO which will "low side" the 17.3-17.7 and "high side" the 18.3-18.7 GHz into the same 250-650 MHz.
If you filter the unwanted sideband to [each] mixer, then you have two 250-650 MHz signals that can't be put on the same coax, if you're using the same LO.
"Seems like" we're running in circles [as in it's been posted before].


----------



## P Smith

if they will use different tpn's ranges for different sats and occupy upper 100 MHz part mostly for Ka-Lo ... but who knows


----------



## bobnielsen

veryoldschool said:


> You've got me more  with your "Well AFAIK the Dish 500+/1000+" as not much makes sense, but since "the point" was about the SAT downlink, 17.3-17.7 GHz and 18.3-20.2 GHz aren't any problem.
> "The problem comes" when you're trying to use a 18.050 GHz LO which will "low side" the 17.3-17.7 and "high side" the 18.3-18.7 GHz into the same 250-650 MHz.
> If you filter the unwanted sideband to [each] mixer, then you have two 250-650 MHz signals that can't be put on the same coax, if you're using the same LO.
> "Seems like" we're running in circles [as in it's been posted before].


Yup....

Hopefully someone "in the know" will jump in here eventually.


----------



## HoTat2

veryoldschool said:


> You've got me more  with your "Well AFAIK the Dish 500+/1000+" as not much makes sense, but since "the point" was about the SAT downlink, 17.3-17.7 GHz and 18.3-20.2 GHz aren't any problem. ...


Well, the Dish Plus L.O.description I gave was a side issue which perhaps I really didn't need to go into in any depth.

Just suffice it to say briefly AIUI, on the Dish 500+ and 1000+ LNBF each Dish Pro (DP) or Dish Pro Plus (DPP) LNBF actually uses two L.O.s due to the frequency stacking. 10.75 and 13.850 GHz to convert the 11.7-12.2 GHz FSS band and 11.25 along with 14.350 GHz to convert the 12.2-12.7 GHz BSS band.

But none of this is relevant to the issue.



> ... "The problem comes" when you're trying to use a 18.050 GHz LO which will "low side" the 17.3-17.7 and "high side" the 18.3-18.7 GHz into the same 250-650 MHz.
> If you filter the unwanted sideband to [each] mixer, then you have two 250-650 MHz signals that can't be put on the same coax, if you're using the same LO.
> "Seems like" we're running in circles [as in it's been posted before].


 Again I agree, the RDBS band will need its own L.O. for reception

The present 18.050 GHz one used for the Ka bands is useless for it.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> This isn't a discussion of whether RDBS will work with an OTARD dish


Funny ... because you're the one that made the claim a few pages back that a RDBS dish couldn't pass OTARD protection.



harsh said:


> ... but whether it can work with a dish assembly that is set up for Ku or Ka from the same or relatively nearby slots.
> 
> The experts have been relatively silent on the technical details of how it could be done.


They don't have to prove it to you now - just wait and buy the dish/LNB.


----------



## veryoldschool

James Long said:


> Funny ... because you're the one that made the claim a few pages back that a RDBS dish couldn't pass OTARD protection.


"Funny" wouldn't be my first choice. Ignorant might be better since the current dish works from Ku thru Ka and it's the LNB where any work will be needed.


----------



## studechip

Virtually all of this is WAY over my head. From a "what makes sense" point of view, don't you all think the engineers at Directv figured this out a long time ago otherwise they wouldn't have started with RDBS in the first place? They can't reasonably replace all of the lnbs just to open up a new band. It has to work with what they already have in place. Make sense?


----------



## HoTat2

studechip said:


> Virtually all of this is WAY over my head. From a "what makes sense" point of view, don't you all think the engineers at Directv figured this out a long time ago otherwise they wouldn't have started with RDBS in the first place? They can't reasonably replace all of the lnbs just to open up a new band. It has to work with what they already have in place. Make sense?


My guess would be if RDBS is intended for mainstream service, then yes the current LNBFs likely have the receive capability already built in. If intended only for niche programming like moving the World Direct service from a separate dish aimed at 95w or something, then a new LNBF swap out program is feasible given the comparatively small number of subscribers needing to be converted.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

HoTat2 said:


> My guess would be if RDBS is intended for mainstream service, then yes the current LNBFs likely have the receive capability already built in. If intended only for niche programming like moving the World Direct service from a separate dish aimed at 95w or something, then a new LNBF swap out program is feasible given the comparatively small number of subscribers needing to be converted.


what about useing it for 4k / 8K that may need new boxes + new LNBF?


----------



## P Smith

what is that ? is D14 expecting carry the channels ?

the 4k/8k is matter of _using_ transponder's bitrates, not LNBF and new STB will come eventually


----------



## James Long

HoTat2 said:


> My guess would be if RDBS is intended for mainstream service, then yes the current LNBFs likely have the receive capability already built in.


I have not looked at the timeline to compare the design and release of the current LNBFs vs the development of RDBS service. RDBS was tested from a satellite a couple of years ago (internal testing) but isn't the current LNBF older than that? Putting the development cost in to the LNBF would have been a gamble.

On the plus side of that argument DirecTV did invest in a satellite that allowed them to test RDBS on a limited basis. But designing the current LNBFs (which have been out for many years) in the hope that they might someday use the band? Producing and distributing LNBFs for a band that they were just applying for the licenses for? That would be surprising.


----------



## inkahauts

Unless it was relatively easy to include that ability with little cost.


----------



## studechip

James Long said:


> I have not looked at the timeline to compare the design and release of the current LNBFs vs the development of RDBS service. RDBS was tested from a satellite a couple of years ago (internal testing) but isn't the current LNBF older than that? Putting the development cost in to the LNBF would have been a gamble.
> 
> On the plus side of that argument DirecTV did invest in a satellite that allowed them to test RDBS on a limited basis. But designing the current LNBFs (which have been out for many years) in the hope that they might someday use the band? Producing and distributing LNBFs for a band that they were just applying for the licenses for? That would be surprising.


Could be James, but I'd guess that the extra costs on them would be less than the cost to replace all existing units.


----------



## HoTat2

James Long said:


> I have not looked at the timeline to compare the design and release of the current LNBFs vs the development of RDBS service. RDBS was tested from a satellite a couple of years ago (internal testing) but isn't the current LNBF older than that? Putting the development cost in to the LNBF would have been a gamble.
> 
> On the plus side of that argument DirecTV did invest in a satellite that allowed them to test RDBS on a limited basis. But designing the current LNBFs (which have been out for many years) in the hope that they might someday use the band? Producing and distributing LNBFs for a band that they were just applying for the licenses for? That would be surprising.


Well ... the original LOAs for RB-1 (S2711) and RB-2 (S2712) were originally filed with the FCC back in '06.

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATLOA2006090800099&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATLOA2006090800100&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

Anyone remember the time around when the Ka/Ku Slimline LNBFs first appeared?

And as I said I find it hard to believe that at least 17.3-17.7 GHz rejection circuity is not incorporated in the current units Ka band receive circuitry, since whenever the RDBS payloads at 99 and 103 are fully transmitting those signals are going to be roaring in at the Ka-lo band's image frequencies resulting in a spurious 350-750 MHz conversion band overlapping with the desired Ka-lo band at 250-750 MHz.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Well ... the original LOAs for RB-1 (S2711) and RB-2 (S2712) were originally filed with the FCC back in '06.
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATLOA2006090800099&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATLOA2006090800100&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number
> 
> Anyone remember the time around when the Ka/Ku Slimline LNBFs first appeared?
> 
> And as I said I find it hard to believe that at least 17.3-17.7 GHz rejection circuity is not incorporated in the current units Ka band receive circuitry, since whenever the RDBS payloads at 99 and 103 are fully transmitting those signals are going to be roaring in at the Ka-lo band's image frequencies resulting in a spurious 350-750 MHz conversion band overlapping with the desired Ka-lo band at 250-750 MHz.


If they filed in 2006, they surely must have had some discussions internally about this for a while before filing. I assume that making such filings with the FCC is not a decision taken lightly. I posted a link a few pages back that documents the FCC discussing permitting RDBS for residential satellite at least as far back as 2002. It seems between this fact and Directv's September 2006 filing date, we can be certain that they had enough advance knowledge they _could_ have included RDBS capability in the KaKu & SWM LNB design, if they wished.

Whether they actually did so or not, we probably won't find out until we see what type of programming the new satellites/bands are used for and whether customers for that programming need new LNBs or not.

While I don't know enough about RF to fully understand your last paragraph, if there would be potential interference between RDBS and current Ka band LNBs, you're right they would have had to design for that. The fact they are planning to use RDBS implies that the current LNBs were in fact designed to either filter out the RDBS frequencies, or to receive them. Unless it would cost a lot (>$10 per LNB) to receive them versus filter them, it will have been designed to receive them.


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> ...
> And as I said I find it hard to believe that at least 17.3-17.7 GHz rejection circuity is not incorporated in the current units Ka band receive circuitry, since whenever the RDBS payloads at 99 and 103 are fully transmitting those signals are going to be roaring in at the Ka-lo band's image frequencies resulting in a spurious 350-750 MHz conversion band overlapping with the desired Ka-lo band at 250-750 MHz.


If you have seen how the 250...750 MHz is using by Ka-Lo tpns, you wouldn't worry too much about "roaring" - there are plenty free chunks to fit a few RDBS transponders without overlapping.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> If you have seen how the 250...750 MHz is using by Ka-Lo tpns, you wouldn't worry too much about "roaring" - there are plenty free chunks to fit a few RDBS transponders without overlapping.


Looking at this example spectrum display from a SL-5 LNBF output by Sonora Design Associates P. Smith, I have to say its hard to see where there's room for such interleaving with its image frequencies.

Notice how the Ka-lo band spectral energy shown on the left side of the displays looks a pretty dense population.









Got some examples as to where in the low band these energy gaps are located.?


----------



## P Smith

Oops, perhaps I've seen the spectrums on my SA long time ago and reversed the pictures as my SA have only 500 Mz max for full screen. Well, back to square one.


----------



## Sixto

Brazil from yesterday: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1004222


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> But as I've stated repeatedly harsh;
> 
> If the current Slimline Ka/Ku dishes can successfully receive the Ka band on one end of the spectrum, and the Ku band on the other end. Then what technological barrier can popup to prevent receiving the RDBS band somewhere near center of the two?


As I've said repeatedly, the current dish doesn't try to grab signals that are closer together with respect to wavelength from the same satellite. DIRECTV's testing has spoken to Ku vs Ka using materials that differentiate based on the difference in wavelengths that is less between Ku and RDBS. Thinking of the proposed situation at 101W, we know that to be optimal, the antennae need to be arranged at different distances from the ground plane and of different lengths. Nobody has offered what the tolerances are but I wonder how they might arrange the little buggers and how they would keep the RDBS antenna from getting blasted by the Ka signal and vice versa.

Finally, all this has to be done in a way that doesn't interfere in any measurable way with the functionality of the existing AT-9 and AU-9 configurations.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Funny ... because you're the one that made the claim a few pages back that a RDBS dish couldn't pass OTARD protection.


The claim was that a combination Ku-RDBS-Ka LNB assembly was not in evidence (still true) and as such, might require multiple feedhorns and a special double dish to grab the 101W slot.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Finally, all this has to be done in a way that doesn't interfere in any measurable way with the functionality of the existing AT-9 and AU-9 configurations.


This is the key to all of this. Any theory that has as a consequence that Slimline LNBs will have their reception of existing signals degraded once the RDBS satellites are lit up, due to interference, is obviously wrong. Either the Slimline LNB avoids this through its design, by filtering or properly receiving these signals, or there will be no signal interference.

Didn't I read that there are already some test RDBS signals being broadcast from one of the existing satellites? If that's the case, we already know that RDBS doesn't interfere with reception of Ka band with either the Slimline or AT-9.

That says nothing about whether either or both will be able to receive RDBS signals without a new LNB or entirely new dish, but it would show that both signals can coexist without causing any problems for current equipment.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> As I've said repeatedly, the current dish doesn't try to grab signals that are closer together with respect to wavelength from the same satellite. DIRECTV's testing has spoken to Ku vs Ka using materials that differentiate based on the difference in wavelengths that is less between Ku and RDBS ....
> 
> 
> 
> There is no logical basis to question if the physical dimensions of the current Ka/Ku ODUs are acceptable for reception of the mid-range RDBS band when they can well receive the present Ku and Ka bands at opposite ends of the spectrum with the same dish dimensions.
> 
> And what "different materials" are used by the dish assembly to receive the Ku verses Ka bands?
> 
> Thinking of the proposed situation at 101W, we know that to be optimal, the antennae need to be arranged at different distances from the ground plane and of different lengths. Nobody has offered what the tolerances are but I wonder how they might arrange the little buggers and how they would keep the RDBS antenna from getting blasted by the Ka signal and vice versa. ...
Click to expand...

 What is so "optimal" about the placement of the antenna probe at 101 as opposed to those at 99 and 103 for the Ka (and possibly RDBS) bands? 

And so what if the "same" antenna probes are blasted by both the RDBS and Ka bands as long as their outputs are directed to separate receive circuits? 



> ... Finally, all this has to be done in a way that doesn't interfere in any measurable way with the functionality of the existing AT-9 and AU-9 configurations.


For all we know, this may have already have been satisfactorily evaluated by the RB-2A payload on D12 at 103 which is spot-beamed into those four (possibly test?) markets in west Texas, southern Utah, Seattle, WA.. and Alaska.

Any subs. report interference to their Ka-lo band HD channels in those markets?


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> This is the key to all of this. Any theory that has as a consequence that Slimline LNBs will have their reception of existing signals degraded once the RDBS satellites are lit up, due to interference, is obviously wrong. Either the Slimline LNB avoids this through its design, by filtering or properly receiving these signals, or there will be no signal interference. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Totally agree.
> 
> ... Didn't I read that there are already some test RDBS signals being broadcast from one of the existing satellites? If that's the case, we already know that RDBS doesn't interfere with reception of Ka band with either the Slimline or AT-9.
Click to expand...

Yes, possibly the "RB-2A" reverse band payload on D12 at 103;

Satellite footprints for RB-2A spot-beamed into four (maybe test?) markets;

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/184044-interactive-beam-footprint-library/?p=2710706



> ... That says nothing about whether either or both will be able to receive RDBS signals without a new LNB or entirely new dish, but it would show that both signals can coexist without causing any problems for current equipment.


Again, completely agree.


----------



## veryoldschool

harsh said:


> As I've said repeatedly, the current dish doesn't try to grab signals that are closer together with respect to wavelength from the same satellite. DIRECTV's testing has spoken to Ku vs Ka using materials that differentiate based on the difference in wavelengths that is less between Ku and RDBS. Thinking of the proposed situation at 101W, we know that to be optimal, the antennae need to be arranged at different distances from the ground plane and of different lengths.


The only thing that you seem to be repeating is how you don't understand how the process works.

The more you post, the clearer it is that you haven't a clue.

"As an example":
The two probes/pickups in WRC727D1 [15.9-21.9 GHz] circular waveguide will be 1/4 wavelength ± 5º from "your ground plane".

Ku & RDBS will not coexist in the same waveguide, while Ka & RDBS will.


----------



## Sixto

More on 79W: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1004700

"As originally envisioned and currently authorized, DIRECTV KU-79W would be capable of operating one downlink beam serving DIRECTV subscribers in the continental United States and a second downlink beam serving Sky Mexico subscribers in Mexico, Central America, and portions of the Caribbean. DIRECTV is currently in the process of constructing two Ka-band satellites (DIRECTV 14 and 15) that, when launched over the next two years, will add significant capacity for service to the United States.
In light of this, DIRECTV decided to delete the U.S. beam and optimize DIRECTV KU-79W for service to Mexico, where it can be used to expand DTVLA's capabilities in order to support the ongoing transition to HD services in Mexico."


----------



## LameLefty

Sixto said:


> More on 79W: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1004700
> 
> "As originally envisioned and currently authorized, DIRECTV KU-79W would be capable of operating one downlink beam serving DIRECTV subscribers in the continental United States and a second downlink beam serving Sky Mexico subscribers in Mexico, Central America, and portions of the Caribbean. DIRECTV is currently in the process of constructing two Ka-band satellites (DIRECTV 14 and 15) that, when launched over the next two years, will add significant capacity for service to the United States.
> In light of this, DIRECTV decided to delete the U.S. beam and optimize DIRECTV KU-79W for service to Mexico, where it can be used to expand DTVLA's capabilities in order to support the ongoing transition to HD services in Mexico."


That's a very good idea. Adding 79º spectrum for CONUS customers would add a lot of hardware (LNBs and probably a whole new ODU) for what would be at best a marginal increase in overall system bandwidth. Given the per-customer cost requirements to take advantage of it, it makes good sense to delete the capability.

What would be interesting for anyone who has the time and curiosity would be to dig around and see which other companies (if any) have FCC licenses for the 79º slot and see what they're using it for; Directv may have done some horse trading, giving up that slot in return for something else. Or not. It may just be as straightforward as it sounds.


----------



## Sixto

Yep LL, be cool to give up 79º to advantage something else, we'll see.


----------



## HoTat2

What I question is since SKY Mexico currently uses the Ku band payload on an Intelsat bird at 58w, how does a new proposed satellite way over at 79w fit in to the service?

Create a new two position elliptical dish covering a 21 degree span?

A two dish solution?

Or abandon use of satellites at 58w and re-align all SKY Mexico sub's dishes over time to 79w?


----------



## Sixto

DirecTV 1R (from 7/30/2013, yesterday): http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1005539


----------



## harsh

55.8E?

That represents a service area including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and on up to Kazakhstan.


----------



## RAD

harsh said:


> 55.8E?
> 
> That represents a service area including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and on up to Kazakhstan.


Yep, they're leasing it to a Russian company, http://www.spacenews.com/article/rscc-use-directv-1r-orbit-backup-purposes .


----------



## HoTat2

RAD said:


> Yep, they're leasing it to a Russian company, http://www.spacenews.com/article/rscc-use-directv-1r-orbit-backup-purposes .


Though the Spacenews article isn't completely accurate as to D1R's recent history;

D1R hasn't been at the 101 slot in years, but after long serving at 72.5 was maneuvered to 110 to briefly serve as a backup to D5 (Tempo 1). Then just as DIRECTV changed their mind and decided to dispose of D1R from there, they received the request from the RSCC for it, so was moved from 110 to (eventually) 55.8 E.


----------



## Curtis0620

Lyngsat has DIRECTV14 as a 1/15/2014 to 3/1/2014 launch.


----------



## cypherx

So they are going to use it to serve terrorist nations? Lovely.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## P Smith

it's money, boatload of money, dude !


----------



## cypherx

it's money, boatload of money, dude ! 


True, money talks!

Now funnel that money into a massive HD channel expansion as soon as D14 is deemed operational!


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## HoTat2

Curtis0620 said:


> Lyngsat has DIRECTV14 as a 1/15/2014 to 3/1/2014 launch.


Yeah, that's simply the launch window posted in D14's Schedule S filed with the FCC last year sometime.

Lyngsat is posting old news on this.


----------



## HoTat2

Man ... I usually checkout the FCC's IBFS website every two or three days for any new satellite filings by DIRECTV, principally for news on D14 and D15 and for Intelsat Int'l about anything on IS30 and IS31 for DIRECTV LA. Though Sixto usually beats me to it. 

And the site is offline right now due to the government shutdown ... LOL.


----------



## Sixto

Yep, noticed that yesterday. Down.


----------



## LameLefty

So has anyone else posted this and I just missed it? Without access to FCC filings, I'm feeling annoyingly cut off. 

http://www.arianespace.com/arianespace/news-press-release/2013/9-9-2013-DIRECTV.asp



> Arianespace to launch a small Direct to Home satellite for DIRECTV
> *Paris, September 9, 2013*
> Arianespace and DIRECTV announced today a launch contract for a small DTH satellite. The launch will take place in the second half of 2015 from Europe's Spaceport in French Guiana on an Ariane 5.
> DIRECTV, one of the world's leading providers of television entertainment services, will utilize the satellite capacity to expand the delivery of high definition, 3-D television and cinema programming.
> The satellite, built by Orbital and based on the Star 2 platform, will have a mass of approximately 3.2 metric tons at launch.
> "We are honored that DIRECTV has entrusted yet another satellite launch to Arianespace. This 11th contract inked with DIRECTV reflects the adaptability of our services, which allows us to offer launches for both three-ton and six-ton satellites," said Stéphane Israël, Chairman & CEO of Arianespace.


Any ideas what role it will play in the Directv fleet? That size is much smaller than the most recent Spaceway 1 & 2/D10/11/12/14/15 class Ka fleet. I wonder if it's for upgrades to the legacy Ku fleet. I'd love to hear some informed speculation from you guys.


----------



## RAD

I think it was mentioned before that it's going to DIRECTV-LA and not for the US market.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## LameLefty

RAD said:


> I think it was mentioned before that it's going to DIRECTV-LA and not for the US market.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Well, there's other stuff in there about the Intelsat leased capacity for Latin America. The first one of those is going up on Arianespace too:

http://www.arianespace.com/arianespace/news-press-release/2013/9-9-2013-IS-32Satellite.asp

I'm pretty sure those birds are large Astrium platforms though, like Directv 15, not the smaller Orbital platform mentioned in the press release I linked first.

EDITED TO ADD:

Okay did some more digging and it appears you're right, RAD. The tentative Arianespace manifest lists "DIRECTV INNOVA/SKY MEXICO 1" for the second half of 2015. That seems to fit their earlier description of the satellite as a "small Direct-to-Home", when with Orbital's description of this type of satellite bus:



> Because Orbital STAR satellites are smaller and significantly less expensive to manufacture and launch, they are an ideal fit for established companies that wish add incremental capacity for their network or provide back-up capacity for key customers.


http://www.orbital.com/SatellitesSpace/Communications/index.shtml

Orbital Fact Sheet, just FYI:
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/GEOStarBus_fact.pdf

The Arianespace launch manifest also lists Directv 15 as "End of year" 2014. While I'm glad Directv is booking all their flights on Arianespace (currently the most reliable commercial launch provider), they are also widely regarded as the most expensive. Will be good to see SpaceX get a number of successful GTO missions over the next year or 2 in order to put some more downward pressure on launch prices. It would also be really good if ILS gets Proton reliability back up to something reasonable. Between their problems and SeaLaunch's failures (and subsequent corporate collapse), there isn't enough competition in the global GTO launch market.


----------



## HoTat2

LameLefty said:


> Well, there's other stuff in there about the Intelsat leased capacity for Latin America. The first one of those is going up on Arianespace too:
> 
> http://www.arianespace.com/arianespace/news-press-release/2013/9-9-2013-IS-32Satellite.asp
> 
> *I'm pretty sure those birds are large Astrium platforms though, like Directv 15, not the smaller Orbital platform mentioned in the press release I linked first. ... *


Nah ...

Intelsat 30 and 31 (or DLA1 and 2) are being built the Space Systems Loral, not Astrium;
http://www.spacenews.com/article/intelsat-buys-two-satellites-lease-directv-1b-deal

Using their "SS/L 1300E" bus according the engineering statement Intelsat filed with the FCC.

And both are scheduled for launch sometime in the 3rd quarters of 2014 and 2015 respectively by Arianspace.


----------



## HoTat2

BTW;

Any folks here with a knack for understanding the orbital mechanics of artificial satellites have any idea as to how Intelsat plans to eventually keep the 3 satellites for DIRECTV LA (IS30, 31, and G3C) in geostationary orbit all at the same location of 95.1 W.L. yet sufficiently separated due to different orbital eccentricities the inclination offsets of their respective orbits? 

From the Intelsat filed Engineering Statement;

Sec. 2.9) *Satellite Station-Keeping*



> _Section 25.210(j) of the Commission's rules stipulates that space stations_
> _operated in the geostationary satellite orbit must be maintained within 0.05°_
> _of their assigned orbital longitude in the east/west direction, unless_
> _specifically authorized by the Commission to operate with a different_
> _longitudinal tolerance. In this regard, Intelsat requests that Intelsat 30 be_
> _maintained within 0.1° of 95.1° W.L. orbital location._
> _As previously stated, Intelsat plans to operate Galaxy 3C, Intelsat 30 and_
> _another planned satellite, Intelsat 31, at 95.1° W.L. Intelsat shall maintain_
> _sufficient spatial separation between these three spacecraft through the use_
> _of orbit eccentricity and inclination offsets. As part of this process, Intelsat_
> _requires greater flexibility with regard to the amount of excursion that each_
> _of these satellites may be permitted to have in the east/west direction. This_
> _slight increase in the station-keeping tolerance will have a negligible_
> _interference impact on the nearest adjacent satellites, Galaxy 25 at 93.1°_
> _W.L. and Galaxy 19 at 97° W.L, which are licensed to Intelsat._
> 
> _The attitude of the spacecraft will be maintained with accuracy consistent_
> _with the achievement of the specified communications performance, after_
> _taking into account all error sources (i.e., attitude perturbations, thermal_
> _distortions, misalignments, orbital tolerances and thruster perturbations)._


----------



## slice1900

Why should it be hard to maintain three satellites to within 0.05 degrees of their designated location? 0.05 degrees is about 10 miles. This Wikipedia article mentions the first time it was done back in the 90s they eventually had 8 satellites in one slot, inside a cube of 150 km (about 3.3 miles on each side) so keeping three in one slot should be simple by comparison.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Why should it be hard to maintain three satellites to within 0.05 degrees of their designated location? 0.05 degrees is about 10 miles. This Wikipedia article mentions the first time it was done back in the 90s they eventually had 8 satellites in one slot, inside a cube of 150 km (about 3.3 miles on each side) so keeping three in one slot should be simple by comparison.


OK;

But the statements about setting eccentricity and inclination offsets of the satellite orbits to assure separation seemed to indicate some kind of plan for a sort of figure-8 ("analemma") type path to be used by one or all three of the birds together to achieve this separation.


----------



## LameLefty

HoTat2 said:


> OK;
> 
> But the statements about setting eccentricity and inclination offsets of the satellite orbits to assure separation seemed to indicate some kind of plan for a sort of figure-8 ("analemma") type path to be used by one or all three of the birds together to achieve this separation.


What that means is basically this: as seen from a fixed point on the Earth's surface, they vehicles will appear to the naked eye to be fixed but there is always some irreguality - eccentricity isn't precisely zero, the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, solar pressue and lunar gravity causes small perturbations, etc. So with all those influences in mind, the vehicles in that "slot" are given nominal baseline parameters several miles offset from one another (I did the math many years ago in the D10 threads). But not only are they offset a bit laterally like that, since eccentricity isn't (and cannot be) perfectly zero, a natural consequence will be that they will not EXACTLY match the Earth's rotational rate. So, they will each naturally appear to drift a tiny bit east and west. Also since the Earth isn't a perfect sphere and eccentricity isn't perfectly zero, the apparent altitude of the satellite from Earth's center of mass will change ever so slightly. This also results in east-west drift because higher orbits are slower than lower ones - the satellites will appear to move eastward when they are lower, and westward when they are higher, as seen from the ground. So the control volumes for each vehicle is thus a 3-D space defined by the limits of apparent east-west drift and by the apogee/perigee altitude difference which defines the orbital eccentricity.


----------



## LameLefty

HoTat2 said:


> Intelsat 30 and 31 (or DLA1 and 2) are being built the Space Systems Loral, not Astrium;
> http://www.spacenews.com/article/intelsat-buys-two-satellites-lease-directv-1b-deal
> 
> Using their "SS/L 1300E" bus according the engineering statement Intelsat filed with the FCC.


Yeah, brain fart when I posted last night. I knew that but got myself off into rabbit hole digging into the oddball Orbital bird and got my mental wires crossed. I've never really made it a priority to pay much attention to the Directv Latin America stuff.


----------



## LameLefty

LameLefty said:


> What that means is basically this: as seen from a fixed point on the Earth's surface, they vehicles will appear to the naked eye to be fixed but there is always some irreguality - eccentricity isn't precisely zero, the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, solar pressue and lunar gravity causes small perturbations, etc. So with all those influences in mind, the vehicles in that "slot" are given nominal baseline parameters several miles offset from one another (I did the math many years ago in the D10 threads). But not only are they offset a bit laterally like that, since eccentricity isn't (and cannot be) perfectly zero, a natural consequence will be that they will not EXACTLY match the Earth's rotational rate. So, they will each naturally appear to drift a tiny bit east and west. Also since the Earth isn't a perfect sphere and eccentricity isn't perfectly zero, the apparent altitude of the satellite from Earth's center of mass will change ever so slightly. This also results in east-west drift because higher orbits are slower than lower ones - the satellites will appear to move eastward when they are lower, and westward when they are higher, as seen from the ground. So the control volumes for each vehicle is thus a 3-D space defined by the limits of apparent east-west drift and by the apogee/perigee altitude difference which defines the orbital eccentricity, as well as north/south drift rate caused slight variances in orbital inclination.


Planning to keep several satellites at one "slot" takes the individual orbital parameters for each vehicle into account and sets up tiny variances intentionally such that their control volumes never intersect; as one is showing a tiny apparent drift south, its nearest neighbor will appear to drift a tiny bit north, etc. It's sort of an elaborate 3D choreography to get it set up and it requires minor tweaks every so often to maintain, which is why satellites have limited lifetimes and why otherwise usable vehicles are retired - at some point their fuel reserves get low and they are required by international agreement to save enough to ensure that they can be raised a few hundred kilometers into a graveyard orbit out of the way.

EDITED TO ADD: Didn't mean to quote my own post, sorry. Meant to edit it and didn't realized I'd pressed the wrong button until I'd already posted.


----------



## HoTat2

LameLefty said:


> Planning to keep several satellites at one "slot" takes the individual orbital parameters for each vehicle into account and sets up tiny variances intentionally such that their control volumes never intersect; as one is showing a tiny apparent drift south, its nearest neighbor will appear to drift a tiny bit north, etc. It's sort of an elaborate 3D choreography to get it set up and it requires minor tweaks every so often to maintain, which is why satellites have limited lifetimes and why otherwise usable vehicles are retired - at some point their fuel reserves get low and they are required by international agreement to save enough to ensure that they can be raised a few hundred kilometers into a graveyard orbit out of the way.
> 
> EDITED TO ADD: Didn't mean to quote my own post, sorry. Meant to edit it and didn't realized I'd pressed the wrong button until I'd already posted.


Since all the satellites operate on most if not all of the same uplink frequency bands, do the large earth station dishes have to move slightly to track the individual satellites' movement throughout this "3-D choreography?"

That is to say with satellites performing this "orbital ballet" at the same slot, what prevents co-channel interference between the separate uplink transmissions intended for G3C, IS30, and IS31 since they all receive on most if not all the same frequencies?


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> HoTat2, on 08 Oct 2013 - 2:25 PM, said:
> Any folks here with a knack for understanding the orbital mechanics of artificial satellites have any idea as to how Intelsat plans to eventually keep the 3 satellites for DIRECTV LA (IS30, 31, and G3C) in geostationary orbit all at the same location of 95.1 W.L. yet sufficiently separated due to different orbital eccentricities the inclination offsets of their respective orbits?


If it helps to know that it is currently being done with the same type of birds, there are three TV satellites at 101W, 107.3W, 110W and 119W that are operated by different organizations and they haven't crashed yet.

Every 1/100th of a degree is 4.53 miles.

It is also important to remember that each satellite is impinged upon by roughly the same external forces so as they get pushed or pulled about, that movement is more or less in unison.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> It is also important to remember that each satellite is impinged upon by roughly the same external forces so as they get pushed or pulled about, that movement is more or less in unison.


That's true enough for lunar tides, but it's not necessarily the case for solar radiation pressure, or resultant vectors caused by small asymmetries in attitude control and propulsion systems. That's why operators agree to coordinate their satellite control operations, and why the FCC is concerned enough about signal interference that licensees must always make sure to put assurances in their application and permit paperwork that control signals won't interfere with one another.


----------



## LameLefty

HoTat2 said:


> Since all the satellites operate on most if not all of the same uplink frequency bands, do the large earth station dishes have to move slightly to track the individual satellites' movement throughout this "3-D choreography?"
> 
> That is to say with satellites performing this "orbital ballet" at the same slot, what prevents co-channel interference between the separate uplink transmissions intended for G3C, IS30, and IS31 since they all receive on most if not all the same frequencies?


These might be better questions for VOS or someone with a lot of real-world operational RF experience like Smiddy ... As a first guesstimate, I would think the answer would depend on the beam width of the control signals as to how precise the pointing must be. I THINK that the usual variations during normal orbital operations wouldn't require re-pointing. I mean, a few miles either way, as seen from 22,300 odd miles away, is a REALLY small variation for a large uplink dish.

I believe the FCC permitting paperwork specifies the allowable uplink and control frequencies for each satellite vehicle and operators must again provide verification that they will not interfere with one another. I would think these days that part of that is may be use of digital encoding and encryption of control signals, as well as frequency variations for uplinked content, but I could be wrong - it's nothing I've looked at very closely.


----------



## James Long

HoTat2 said:


> Since all the satellites operate on most if not all of the same uplink frequency bands, do the large earth station dishes have to move slightly to track the individual satellites' movement throughout this "3-D choreography?"


The uplinks are tied to the downlinks so you would only find the same uplink bands on satellites with the same downlink bands. If you can find the Schedule S filed with the FCC for US satellites or data from the ITU for all satellites it isn't hard to see how the spectrum is managed.



HoTat2 said:


> That is to say with satellites performing this "orbital ballet" at the same slot, what prevents co-channel interference between the separate uplink transmissions intended for G3C, IS30, and IS31 since they all receive on most if not all the same frequencies?


One common feature you will find on satellites with spotbeams or more than one footprint is a receive dish on the satellite that is aimed at a specific receive site. Uplinks from Brazil do not interfere with uplinks from LA.

The global antennas used for receiving station keeping commands require more coordination.


----------



## slice1900

I was looking back through some older posts on this thread while killing time on a conference call and saw D15 was listed as being destined for 97W. Is there still a chance for that? That would obviously require a new LNB, but presumably could use the existing Slimline dish.

There was a link to a patent someone dug up back on page 9 for a LNB that had feedhorns designed to receive 17.3 - 20.2 GHz (i.e. specifically including RDBS frequencies) that included a frequency selective reflecting surface on the LNB arm. This would reflect a Ku signal and pass a Ka signal after it reflected off the dish towards the 101 feedhorn, so both could be received from 101 at the same time. If they went this way the LNB arm would need to be replaced as well. Is it designed to be removable on a Slimline dish? Of course, just because there's a patent filed doesn't mean it'll go anywhere, of course. I wonder how that high tech surface would do in places that get snow/ice. Or bird poop 

The other thing I was wondering about was there was some discussion about maybe needing more than 4 coaxes at some point, and going to 6. It looks like right now the only open space is 1650 - 2150 MHz on the 99/101 lines, which is where D14's Ka capacity would presumably go, creating a 99cb. But that's all there is, so either they go higher in frequency like VOS suggests, or need another pair of coaxes.

Going to higher frequencies is obviously preferable, assuming that the tuners in legacy capable receivers and SWM 8/16/32 switches can handle the 2350 - 2850 MHz range. If they were forced to go to 6 coaxes, I wonder if there would be any chance of using the flex ports to avoid the need to replace all those SWM multiswitches? They'd have to replicate 95's content on one of the new sats to allow freeing up on both flex ports, but 95 has only 9 transponders, so that would not be difficult.


----------



## inkahauts

No clue and d15 could be for Latin America too you never know for sure they can always change things. I doubt it but...,


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> I was looking back through some older posts on this thread while killing time on a conference call and saw D15 was listed as being destined for 97W. Is there still a chance for that? That would obviously require a new LNB, but presumably could use the existing Slimline dish.
> 
> 
> 
> Know which post that is?
> 
> Looking back all I could locate was a brief mention of it by P. Smith on page 8 and it was in the form of a question.
> 
> IIRC, DIRECTV withdrew their bid for a Ka band satellite at 97W.
> 
> There was a link to a patent someone dug up back on page 9 for a LNB that had feedhorns designed to receive 17.3 - 20.2 GHz (i.e. specifically including RDBS frequencies) that included a frequency selective reflecting surface on the LNB arm. This would reflect a Ku signal and pass a Ka signal after it reflected off the dish towards the 101 feedhorn, so both could be received from 101 at the same time. If they went this way the LNB arm would need to be replaced as well. Is it designed to be removable on a Slimline dish? Of course, just because there's a patent filed doesn't mean it'll go anywhere, of course. I wonder how that high tech surface would do in places that get snow/ice. Or bird poop
Click to expand...

Yeah ,,, a novel concept;

Not sure how much interest DIRECTV at least has in developing something akin to it for receiving the Ka and Ku band from the same slot, but did like to see how the author purposes a 17.3-20.2 GHz wide feedhorn which I feel is the approach to be used at 99 and 103 instead of separate ones for the RDBS and the Ka bands.



> The other thing I was wondering about was there was some discussion about maybe needing more than 4 coaxes at some point, and going to 6. It looks like right now the only open space is 1650 - 2150 MHz on the 99/101 lines, which is where D14's Ka capacity would presumably go, creating a 99cb. But that's all there is, so either they go higher in frequency like VOS suggests, or need another pair of coaxes.


Likely to be called "99ca" 

And yes, the Ka-hi band (1650-2150 MHz) at 99W currently occupied sparely by spotbeams from Spaceway 2 on tps. 1-6 is to be completely filled by D14 tps.1-24 (tps. 1-8 are spotbeams). Not sure what that means for SW2's future role at 99W now though.



> Going to higher frequencies is obviously preferable, assuming that the tuners in legacy capable receivers and SWM 8/16/32 switches can handle the 2350 - 2850 MHz range.


 For the ITU region covering the U.S., RDBS band is only 400 MHz.


> If they were forced to go to 6 coaxes, I wonder if there would be any chance of using the flex ports to avoid the need to replace all those SWM multiswitches? They'd have to replicate 95's content on one of the new sats to allow freeing up on both flex ports, but 95 has only 9 transponders, so that would not be difficult.


Yeah, since there is really no room in the current stack of three 500 MHz wide blocks separated by 200 MHz guard bands, the LNBFs connected to external SWiM units will either have to move the converted RDBS band outside the stack "electrically" by converting to a frequency somewhere above 2150 MHz. Or move it "physically" by re-tasking the flexports.

I feel it will be the prior since other than mounting the SWIM module outdoors, having six coax runs to the POE of a residence is a total non-starter. Four is bad enough.


----------



## HoTat2

inkahauts said:


> No clue and d15 could be for Latin America too you never know for sure they can always change things. I doubt it but...,


Nah ...

Virtually certain D15 is to be used for DIRECTV USA;

Don't know where yet among those assets since no public FCC information has been submitted for it at present, but almost a certainty it will be for DIRECTV USA.

DIRECTV LA uses the FSS Ku and extended Ku bands. Not the BSS Ku, Ka and RDBS bands to be used by D15.


----------



## inkahauts

I wonder if someday we will start seeing birds do double duty. Bss for USA and ku for Latin from the same bird for example. Just a random thought.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Know which post that is?
> 
> Looking back all I could locate was a brief mention of it by P. Smith on page 8 and it was in the form of a question.
> 
> IIRC, DIRECTV withdrew their bid for a Ka band satellite at 97W.


There were a bunch of them, just search for "97" on this thread. However, when I did so I saw a post I must have missed before that Directv had withdrawn their applications for 97W as you said. So I guess D15 could not be going there. That patent filing about the selectively reflecting surface to allow Ka band at 101 becomes more interesting.




HoTat2 said:


> Yeah, since there is really no room in the current stack of three 500 MHz wide blocks separated by 200 MHz guard bands, the LNBFs connected to external SWiM units will either have to move the converted RDBS band outside the stack "electrically" by converting to a frequency somewhere above 2150 MHz. Or move it "physically" by re-tasking the flexports.
> 
> I feel it will be the prior since other than mounting the SWIM module outdoors, having six coax runs to the POE of a residence is a total non-starter. Four is bad enough.


I agree that using higher frequencies is preferable, though they could limit the number of residences needing 6 coaxes if they were able to introduce an improved SWM LNB that had more channels (via a wider frequency range, less space between them, or both) If they could get to 12 or 16 there would be far fewer residential customers needing a legacy LNB. Of course that would depend on the receivers being able to use it with a simple firmware upgrade, which may or may not be possible - just depends on how much of the SWM capability is implemented in hardware versus the hardware being more flexible and mostly controlled via software.

Whatever they may do that requires a new LNB, I couldn't see it being done for something that had a wide market. Maybe they'd put the locals for small markets in it (especially markets that are currently only on 119) Or maybe use it for something with narrow appeal, like 4K channels.


----------



## inkahauts

When you think about I, that is how they pushed out the lnbs that gab 99 and 103. It was for new Hi Definition mpeg4 service. We could easily see them moving to This new LNG system for 4k at some point. Would keep the roll out of that equipment slow and steady. ,also with more foreign language stuff too.


----------



## JosephB

This has been discussed to death, but I don't see 4K being big enough to pay for its own orbital slot, especially if it's new. I could see them pushing 4K to 110/119 and if you want 4K you get a SLS-5 LNB

Anything requiring new hardware is certainly going to be a challenge at DirecTV's current scale, but niche services simply can't support the costs involved with a new satellite and hardware rollout. They ultimately will need to get large portions of their customer base on those platforms to pay off, and 4K isn't going to do that.


----------



## inkahauts

This has been discussed to death, but I don't see 4K being big enough to pay for its own orbital slot, especially if it's new. I could see them pushing 4K to 110/119 and if you want 4K you get a SLS-5 LNB

Anything requiring new hardware is certainly going to be a challenge at DirecTV's current scale, but niche services simply can't support the costs involved with a new satellite and hardware rollout. They ultimately will need to get large portions of their customer base on those platforms to pay off, and 4K isn't going to do that.


Depends on if your looking one year out or five years out with ppv all going to 4k and maybe HBO. Satelites can't be looked at for only a year or two out, they have to look at them for many years out.


----------



## slice1900

I doubt buy "PPV all going to 4K". There just won't be the demand for it, since it isn't really a noticeable difference. Most larger TVs will have 4K standard in a few years, so people will have 4K TVs, but when they see there's no real difference in 4K content they won't be interested in paying Directv extra for 4K service, or paying for an upgrade to 4K equipment.

I bet there will be a few 4K PPV channels and maybe one 4K HBO channel, similar to 3D. ESPN may try to do 4K like they tried to 3D, but it'll flop just the same, since it is particularly irrelevant for sports where you'd never sit as close as you might for a movie due to the need to see the entire screen in a single glance to take in the action. A more useful upgrade for sports would be 1080p60 (or even p120, though you'd need a plasma for it to matter because LCDs are way too slow)I

4K will be a niche service. I agree that a niche service can't support a new satellite itself, but it could be that RDBS on D14 or D15 can be used for those niche services, but won't be the satellites' primary purpose. If something goes wrong and Directv has to move satellites around they could disrupt 4K services to do it much more easily than they could disrupt something a lot of people will actually care about.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

movie theaters have 4K with _3D some new moives have 3D HFR_ and even Dolby Atmos.

But all of that works on the big screen and the movies come on HDDs. The bandwidth for all of that live with be big.


----------



## JosephB

inkahauts said:


> Depends on if your looking one year out or five years out with ppv all going to 4k and maybe HBO. Satelites can't be looked at for only a year or two out, they have to look at them for many years out.


I don't even see them recouping their costs if they offered all the premiums + PPV in 4K. First off, they couldn't stop offering it in normal HD and in SD, so that means only a fraction of people are actually going to take them up on the 4K service. If they forced all HD customers wanting premiums to upgrade to 4K equipment, even if the upgrade were free, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. 4K is going to be just like 3D, a niche service.


----------



## inkahauts

With time comes advancements. That will be in compression (ie less bandwidth) and lower costs. In ten years when manufacturers only make 4k tvs and compression is low they will want 4k native which DIRECTV will have the ability to deliver at a cheap price by then. 

Many people said Hi Definition was niche too.


----------



## longrider

inkahauts said:


> Many people said Hi Definition was niche too.


However HD was such a huge improvement in picture quality it quickly became mainstream. 3D was supposed to be the next big thing, it has turned out to be a niche product. I think 4K will be niche too, not just because of the content delivery issues but because with the screen size and viewing distance in most homes the human eye wont be able to tell the difference. People give me crap because my 9 yr old TV in the living room is "only" 720p but I have seen the tables that a 50" TV at my viewing distance is right on the border where you can see the improvement with 1080. Also, that is with perfect eyes and as my eyes are far from perfect I dont worry about it


----------



## inkahauts

First I'm not going to debate the charts cause I believe they are jut wrong for a variety if reasons and shouldn't e used. They are to short on info to be accurate. 

Second you are assuming manufactures will keep making other tvs. Attrition will happen over time. And do you see any DLP rptvs anymore? Much less CRT etc? Time will move us along. But it'll likely be attrition for the most part. I say ten years or so for a reason.


----------



## slice1900

Saying "the charts are wrong" is like an audiophile saying that people who tell them their $500 oxygen free speaker cable is snake oil are wrong. You have science on one side, and people's own "but I _know_ I can hear/see the difference" opinion on the other.


----------



## inkahauts

Saying "the charts are wrong" is like an audiophile saying that people who tell them their $500 oxygen free speaker cable is snake oil are wrong. You have science on one side, and people's own "but I know I can hear/see the difference" opinion on the other.


No I say its total hogwash because different tvs have different clarity and contrast that have massive affects on your picture you see as well so simply saying size alone matters for distance and so on is silly to me. Poor contrast screen at a larger size won't be as good as a smaller screen with better contrast for many people, if they strictly follow the charts. And vice versa.

Also the charts take nothing into account for motion artifact ing and such that can create blur or blocking as well, regardless of size.

sometimes people, look at the old NTSC charts and do not realize Hi Definition is not the same, can easily go bigger with Hi Definition over sd sets for the same distance. There's just so many variables.

These are facts, not just opinion. My point is simply you can't just go by a chart and think its perfect way to chose screen size etc. it's not. My opinion is I have always found a larger screen than the chart suggests just fine for my tastes for many reasons. But that's my opinion after I have chosen a good set and model that will produce the quality of picture I want at several sizes.

And when we get to 4k start thinking about colors and motion artifacting. Not just pixels but color depth and contrast should be incredible. Likely a far bigger factor than resolution by itself, on a good model. Time will tell for sure on that though.

Size charts are ok starting points for many, but there's a lot of other things that are more important to look at and that going bigger or smaller may be better for some people. Besides, do the charts also say at what eye sight they are for? Just saying....


----------



## slice1900

Contrast/clarity of the TV and motion artifacting are irrelevant. There are good quality and poor quality HDTVs, and the same will true for 4K TVs (there is already a 50" 4K TV that costs less than $1000 from Seiki, which I assume is not of the highest quality) 4K will use AVC encoding which reduces the required bit rate but you'll still see cable/satellite providers overcompressing signals to fit more in the available bandwidth, or at least they'd have to if 4K was used on more than a handful of channels. These are the same problems that HD faces, but it still was a big improvement over SD. If your argument is that 4K is better if you have a Kuro-quality TV and Blu Ray source material, well, even if so most people will have a LCD which inherently has poor contrast, buying one or two steps up from the cheapest model at the size they want, and be watching cable or satellite signals compressed 4-10x more than Blu Rays are.

But the main reason why the quality of the TV and source material isn't relevant is because they didn't do actual testing to make the charts, they based it on the visual capability of the human eye. The eye has only so much angular resolution possible due to the density of the cones on the retina, and that is only available on a fairly narrow area at the center of the eye - the rods that give you your peripheral vision have terrible angular resolution, and can't perceive color, but are very good at sensing motion. Your eye is constantly makes small involuntary movements to increase the range of vision by moving the cones around, if it didn't we'd all have tunnel vision, able to see clearly only a few degrees to either side of our nose (actually, due to the way the brain works, if the involuntary eye movements are stopped, you are completely blind)

The lens in the human eye can only focus so well. The charts assume 20/20 vision, but those who have had LASIK with really good outcomes would be better than the charts indicate. If you've had wavefront LASIK and ended up with 20/10 vision, you can cut the distance on the charts in half, and would probably see some benefit from 4K at normal viewing distances. The same would be true if you are one of those who likes to sit much closer than the 'recommended' viewing distance for a screen of a given size. Most people find it tiring to sit that close for very long, because you have to move your eyes too much to take in the entire screen. But the people with vision in the 20/10 range are a tiny fraction of the population, and while I have no idea how many people sit "too close", based on where friends have their couches for their TVs I think most people naturally sit at the recommended distance, just like most people going to a movie theatre naturally avoid the first row.

To the point, have you actually SEEN a fair test of a 4K TV? I had the opportunity to see one recently. They had a demo playing on it from a connected computer, showing all sorts of flowery meadows and a few movie clips meant to show off how wonderful 4K was. The most interesting part to me was where it showing a split screen view of a 4K movie, with 4K on the left side and a 1080p on the right, downsampled with four pixels used per pixel to simulate 1080p. Of course the difference was quite visible from up close, but when I moved back to a distance I'd find comfortable to watch, I couldn't see any difference. That's not surprising because even with contacts I have slightly less than 20/20 vision due to a mild uncorrected astigmatism. I moved in a little closer, a little closer to where I could start seeing the difference, and didn't find a 'small' difference all that dramatic. Even from right up close where the difference is easy to see, it was nothing like the dramatic night and day difference going from SD to HD.

In the past when I've seen 4K it has been some high end high dollar 4K screen showing 4K source material, next to a lower quality 1080p TV showing something totally different (or the same movie a bit out of sync, clearly demonstrating that it wasn't using the same source material) That's rigged, IMHO, and not very useful for telling the real difference between them that one's own eyes can perceive.


----------



## JosephB

slice1900 said:


> Contrast/clarity of the TV and motion artifacting are irrelevant. There are good quality and poor quality HDTVs, and the same will true for 4K TVs (there is already a 50" 4K TV that costs less than $1000 from Seiki, which I assume is not of the highest quality) 4K will use AVC encoding which reduces the required bit rate but you'll still see cable/satellite providers overcompressing signals to fit more in the available bandwidth, or at least they'd have to if 4K was used on more than a handful of channels. These are the same problems that HD faces, but it still was a big improvement over SD. If your argument is that 4K is better if you have a Kuro-quality TV and Blu Ray source material, well, even if so most people will have a LCD which inherently has poor contrast, buying one or two steps up from the cheapest model at the size they want, and be watching cable or satellite signals compressed 4-10x more than Blu Rays are.
> 
> But the main reason why the quality of the TV and source material isn't relevant is because they didn't do actual testing to make the charts, they based it on the visual capability of the human eye. The eye has only so much angular resolution possible due to the density of the cones on the retina, and that is only available on a fairly narrow area at the center of the eye - the rods that give you your peripheral vision have terrible angular resolution, and can't perceive color, but are very good at sensing motion. Your eye is constantly makes small involuntary movements to increase the range of vision by moving the cones around, if it didn't we'd all have tunnel vision, able to see clearly only a few degrees to either side of our nose (actually, due to the way the brain works, if the involuntary eye movements are stopped, you are completely blind)
> 
> The lens in the human eye can only focus so well. The charts assume 20/20 vision, but those who have had LASIK with really good outcomes would be better than the charts indicate. If you've had wavefront LASIK and ended up with 20/10 vision, you can cut the distance on the charts in half, and would probably see some benefit from 4K at normal viewing distances. The same would be true if you are one of those who likes to sit much closer than the 'recommended' viewing distance for a screen of a given size. Most people find it tiring to sit that close for very long, because you have to move your eyes too much to take in the entire screen. But the people with vision in the 20/10 range are a tiny fraction of the population, and while I have no idea how many people sit "too close", based on where friends have their couches for their TVs I think most people naturally sit at the recommended distance, just like most people going to a movie theatre naturally avoid the first row.
> 
> To the point, have you actually SEEN a fair test of a 4K TV? I had the opportunity to see one recently. They had a demo playing on it from a connected computer, showing all sorts of flowery meadows and a few movie clips meant to show off how wonderful 4K was. The most interesting part to me was where it showing a split screen view of a 4K movie, with 4K on the left side and a 1080p on the right, downsampled with four pixels used per pixel to simulate 1080p. Of course the difference was quite visible from up close, but when I moved back to a distance I'd find comfortable to watch, I couldn't see any difference. That's not surprising because even with contacts I have slightly less than 20/20 vision due to a mild uncorrected astigmatism. I moved in a little closer, a little closer to where I could start seeing the difference, and didn't find a 'small' difference all that dramatic. Even from right up close where the difference is easy to see, it was nothing like the dramatic night and day difference going from SD to HD.
> 
> In the past when I've seen 4K it has been some high end high dollar 4K screen showing 4K source material, next to a lower quality 1080p TV showing something totally different (or the same movie a bit out of sync, clearly demonstrating that it wasn't using the same source material) That's rigged, IMHO, and not very useful for telling the real difference between them that one's own eyes can perceive.


This is entirely why it will be even less of a success than 3D. I suspect you'll get a couple of 4K PPV channels, and maybe they will broadcast some special events (Super Bowl, BCS Championship Game) in 4K but that'll be it. Eventually TVs may all "support" 4K in that they can take in the signal and push the pixels out, but if you look at the number of people who are watching stretched SD on an HD set or still have an SD set, it probably still outnumbers people who have HD properly working in their home.


----------



## Sixto

It's been quiet since this afternoon, thus good time to recommend moving the 4K talk to another thread. Good discussion, but let's keep this more focused on upcoming satellites. Thanks.


----------



## LameLefty

Sixto said:


> It's been quiet since this afternoon, thus good time to recommend moving the 4K talk to another thread. Good discussion, but let's keep this more focused on upcoming satellites. Thanks.


Ditto. Please leave this thread uncluttered for satellite fleet discussion and posts.

Thanks.


----------



## Athlon646464

*EADS : Astrium to build new satellite for US operator DIRECTV*

Astrium, Europe's leading space technology company, has been awarded a contract by US company DIRECTV Latin America to build the latest addition to its communications satellite fleet. The satellite will be based on Astrium's highly reliable Eurostar E3000 platform and will be placed in orbit at the start of 2016.

The satellite will provide broadcasting services through up to 60 Ku-band transponders to Brazil, ensuring continuity of legacy services countrywide, while at the same time expanding into new services such as HDTV. To do so, it will be capable of providing overall coverage across Brazil, as well as regional television channels through 20 spot beams.

Full Story Here


----------



## RAD

So nothing in the rumor mill yet about when Arianespace has D14 on their launch calendar?


----------



## HoTat2

RAD said:


> So nothing in the rumor mill yet about when Arianespace has D14 on their launch calendar?


Actually there appears to be a bit of an update beyond the mere 1/15/14-3/1/14 launch window listed in D14's Schedule-S

NasaSpacefilght.com now has a strike mark though the launch window quoted above and now listing more specifically as sometime in Feb. 2014



> January 15 - March 1 February - DirecTV 14 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3


----------



## harsh

Here's the correctly formed link: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com


----------



## HoTat2

Athlon646464 said:


> *EADS : Astrium to build new satellite for US operator DIRECTV*
> 
> Astrium, Europe's leading space technology company, has been awarded a contract by US company DIRECTV Latin America to build the latest addition to its communications satellite fleet. The satellite will be based on Astrium's highly reliable Eurostar E3000 platform and will be placed in orbit at the start of 2016.
> 
> The satellite will provide broadcasting services through up to 60 Ku-band transponders to Brazil, ensuring continuity of legacy services countrywide, while at the same time expanding into new services such as HDTV. To do so, it will be capable of providing overall coverage across Brazil, as well as regional television channels through 20 spot beams.
> 
> Full Story Here


This must be a new satellite beyond or instead of the planned KU-45W which doesn't have specifications like this one at all.


----------



## inkahauts

If guess another one. They are expanding there fleet everywhere and probably soon announcing replacement satelites for some ill bet. It seems they like to spread them out. Probably for cost reasons.


----------



## HarleyD

HoTat2 said:


> Actually there appears to be a bit of an update beyond the mere 1/15/14-3/1/14 launch window listed in D14's Schedule-S
> 
> NasaSpacefilght.com now has a strike mark though the launch window quoted above and now listing more specifically as sometime in Feb. 2014


So they narrowed it down by 15 days. :rolling:


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah, since there is really no room in the current stack of three 500 MHz wide blocks separated by 200 MHz guard bands, the LNBFs connected to external SWiM units will either have to move the converted RDBS band outside the stack "electrically" by converting to a frequency somewhere above 2150 MHz. Or move it "physically" by re-tasking the flexports.


Going back to this discussion, I have a question. Is using 200 MHz for guard bands really necessary? If Directv did introduce a new LNB, would smaller guard bands be an option? I know it isn't the same thing, but there are some pretty small guard bands of only a few MHz between transponders.

I realize that even if you can shrink the guard bands you probably can't eliminate them entirely, but if were possible to do so, you'd get 200 MHz between 750 and 950, and another 200 MHz between 1450 and 1650. Hey, 400 MHz, exactly what is needed for RDBS!

Unless there is a dormant LO at 14.95 GHz to allow current LNBs to place RDBS at 2350 - 2750 MHz, it would seem a new LNB would be required to receive RDBS. At that point, maybe shrinking the guard bands is an option. Just as an illustration, let's say we use a 50 MHz guard band instead of 200 MHz, and widen the IF range by 75 MHz on either end. If I've done the math right, this solution requires only two LOs; one for Ku at 10.475 GHz (or 14.925 GHz) and one for Ka and RDBS at 18.975 GHz:

B band 175 - 675 MHz
A band 725 - 1225 MHz
RDBS 1275 - 1675 MHz
Ku 1725 - 2225 MHz

This might make it more likely upgrading would require only a new LNB to handle A band and RDBS from D14 @99W and RDBS from D15 @101W, because it is expanding the signal range by a very small amount. It would also leave higher frequencies free in case Directv wanted to add even more capacity down the road.


----------



## LameLefty

HarleyD said:


> So they narrowed it down by 15 days. :rolling:


That's a big deal if you're the guy or gal responsible for coordinating travel schedules for people out to Kourou, getting range clearance for the launch, coordinating deliveries of hydrazine, coordinating tracking assets, scheduling work shifts for satellite controllers, etc. Expect to get a tighter date probably by mid-December. Well, actually, I bet Directv, SS/L and Arianespace already have a "NET" (No Earlier Than) date on their internal calendars but the actual targeted launch date is pretty fluid and may change from week to week as things come down to the wire.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Going back to this discussion, I have a question. Is using 200 MHz for guard bands really necessary? If Directv did introduce a new LNB, would smaller guard bands be an option? I know it isn't the same thing, but there are some pretty small guard bands of only a few MHz between transponders.
> 
> I realize that even if you can shrink the guard bands you probably can't eliminate them entirely, but if were possible to do so, you'd get 200 MHz between 750 and 950, and another 200 MHz between 1450 and 1650. Hey, 400 MHz, exactly what is needed for RDBS!
> 
> Unless there is a dormant LO at 14.95 GHz to allow current LNBs to place RDBS at 2350 - 2750 MHz, it would seem a new LNB would be required to receive RDBS. At that point, maybe shrinking the guard bands is an option. Just as an illustration, let's say we use a 50 MHz guard band instead of 200 MHz, and widen the IF range by 75 MHz on either end. If I've done the math right, this solution requires only two LOs; one for Ku at 10.475 GHz (or 14.925 GHz) and one for Ka and RDBS at 18.975 GHz:
> 
> B band 175 - 675 MHz
> A band 725 - 1225 MHz
> RDBS 1275 - 1675 MHz
> Ku 1725 - 2225 MHz
> 
> This might make it more likely upgrading would require only a new LNB to handle A band and RDBS from D14 @99W and RDBS from D15 @101W, because it is expanding the signal range by a very small amount. It would also leave higher frequencies free in case Directv wanted to add even more capacity down the road.


Well these number will certainly work theoretically, even though this would mean the Ka B and RDBS bands will be inverted.

The problem of course is that beyond the same question with the first suggestion of will the present SWiM modules accept these different frequencies, we mainly need to know the real reason for the need of a 200 MHz guard band? And only the engineers at DIRECTV and maybe Zinwell can answer that for certain, which they won't, or at least not publicly of course since its proprietary and corporate confidential information.

Just like, why the need for a 102 (102.06 specifically) MHz spacing for the SWiM carriers? This seems excessive as well.

I can't believe these design decisions are just arbitrary.

For instance, the new DIRECTV LA LNBF is designed to receive a new 10.95-11.2 GHz band in addition to the current 11.450-12.2 GHz one in preparation for the IS30/31 birds when launched.

And DIRECTV now uses a second 13.1 GHz L.O. for the present 11.450-12,2 GHz band on this LNBF which drops the converted IF from the old DLA LNBF IF band of 950-1700 MHz down 50 MHz to 900-1650 MHz (though inverted now) to produce a 200 MHz IF guard band spacing with the new band for this LNBF as well.

Again, why this magic 200 MHz guard band? :shrug:


----------



## slice1900

I made the unspoken assumption that inverted bands aren't a problem, since the BBC inverts the B band the same way and receivers have no problem with that. However, there would be an alternate scenario I didn't post using 50 MHz guard bands and three LOs (for Ku, RDBS/B band, and A band) that runs from 50 MHz to 2150 MHz - the benefit being the top frequency isn't any higher than it is now. It would require a new BBC with an LO of 2200 instead of 2400 like the current one to maintain the 2150 MHz top frequency for HD receivers connected in legacy mode. That would avoid the SWM having to deal with inverted bands, in case that's a problem. The new "SUP-2200" BBC would still utilize inverted bands, with two bands inverted instead of just one in the current BBC.

The 102.06 MHz SWM channel width is an interesting example. That leaves guard bands of only 65-75 MHz between transponders. The SWM is doing something sort of like the LNB (and BBC) is by shifting frequencies. Obviously I have no idea how it is implemented, but since has to shift frequencies anywhere in the range of 250-750, 950-1450 or 1650-2150 to one of the 9 SWM channels, it "seems like" it uses some sort of variable/programmable LO, or a sequence of LOs or even multiple LOs at the same time. Or at least the net effect is as if it is doing this, even if it is actually implemented in a completely different manner.

If the SWM can work with 65-75 MHz guard bands, despite having more complicated variable frequency shifting requirements, why couldn't the LNB? One answer to that question is that perhaps the need size of a required guard band is dependent on the magnitude of the frequency shift. A 15 GHz LO may need a bigger guard band than a 1.5 GHz LO would. Maybe VOS or one of the other guys with some experience in that world can comment on that.

The need for flexibility in the frequency shifting of the SWM may explain why SWM channels are the size they are. It may be easier to implement as a two stage process, with first stage only able to make gross adjustments to put the transponder somewhere in the 102 MHz channel, and the second stage making a fine tuning adjustment to put it exactly where it is required. Since there is some frequency drift in an LNB the tuner has to handle the transponder being off by at least 1 or 2 MHz, so the fine tuning doesn't need to be perfect.

Who knows, maybe the tuner can handle the transponder being off by a lot more, so long as any part of it is at the center frequency, and the 102.06 MHz channel width is as wide as it is due to the transponder being able to be off by 30 MHz+ and still successfully tuned by the receiver. That would make the frequency shifting job for the SWM a lot easier.


----------



## HarleyD

LameLefty said:


> That's a big deal if you're the guy or gal responsible for coordinating travel schedules for people out to Kourou, getting range clearance for the launch, coordinating deliveries of hydrazine, coordinating tracking assets, scheduling work shifts for satellite controllers, etc. Expect to get a tighter date probably by mid-December. Well, actually, I bet Directv, SS/L and Arianespace already have a "NET" (No Earlier Than) date on their internal calendars but the actual targeted launch date is pretty fluid and may change from week to week as things come down to the wire.


I understand all that, which makes this updated window actually pretty limited as far as furthering the ability to make actual plans. It only clarifies an anticipation window a little.

The difference between Feb 1 and Feb 28 is still great enough that the contingencies and considerations you name still can't really be firmed up or nailed down based on that window. You wouldn't want hydrazine and satellite controllers sitting around for four weeks waiting to be used because you planned around the earliest possible date.

They probably won't be able to make any meaningful commitments of resources until the mid December time-frame you referenced.

That's what I'm looking forward too. Firm dates. Punch lists. Measurable, event-driven movement.

I'm not too demanding. :righton:


----------



## JosephB

Wouldn't they already have hardware for this stuff in the pipe and training going on and plans announced if they planned to use this commercially and they're launching in the Spring?


----------



## slice1900

Depends on how quickly they're going to use RDBS and what it will be used for. It will take time to get the satellite positioned after launch, and then they need to test everything. They'll have a lot of new Ka bandwidth to play with at first, so there probably isn't any urgency to utilize the RDBS transponders right away.. Maybe they'll launch D15 before any new equipment is introduced, so they can do some final beta testing.

Or maybe we can take the silence to mean they planned ahead and designed existing equipment with RDBS in mind


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> .....
> 
> Or maybe we can take the silence to mean they planned ahead and designed existing equipment with RDBS in mind


This is what I have heard implied by people who would or should know. And Its also what I expect to be honest. We won't need any new equipment to get anything off the new birds. How or why I have no idea technically.


----------



## slice1900

I know this was discussed a few months ago but I don't recall ever seeing anything conclusive. Does Directv have Ka licenses for 101? I decided to read that patent posted way back for the selectively reflective surface on a LNB and what it actually lays out is this:

The reflective surface sits in the middle of the arm, in between the focal point of the dish and the 101 feedhorn. It reflects Ku, and passes Ka, so the Ku feedhorn moves to the near end of the arm next to the dish. Thus there are 3 Ka feedhorns in the usual spot. Drawings show the center feedhorn for 101 can "optionally" be slightly smaller since it doesn't need to receive down to 17.3 GHz like the 99 and 103 do (i.e., no RDBS) It also mentions that the efficiency of the Ka feedhorns for 99 and 103 will be improved by not having their geometry compromised due to the Ku feedhorn for 101 located between them. Anything that could possibly help even a little with rain fade will be welcomed by many, I'm sure!

The patent states that Directv has licenses to broadcast Ka from 101, and has applied for licenses to broadcast RDBS from 99 and 103. The filing date on this patent was in 2008, so things may have changed since then, but unless they've since given up that Ka license for 101 they should still have it. We know D14 will be broadcasting Ka hi and RDBS from 99, and that D15 has RDBS, Ka and Ku transponders, but don't know for sure where it will go.

This begs a few questions:

1) Does Directv still hold the license for Ka from 101? It seems the discussion about whether it would be possible to receive Ka with a 2* spacing is moot, because why patent a design for something that can't work. They not only think they can, but planned on doing it unless they since gave up the Ka license for 101.

2) Does Directv have a RDBS license for 101? If not, who got it? Maybe some horsetrading with them would be possible if Directv wanted it to streamline things.

3) Did Directv get the RDBS license for 103 the patent says they applied for? Unless D15 is going to 103, which seems unlikely but isn't impossible, they don't have anything publicly announced that would provide that. But that doesn't mean if they introduced a new LNB they wouldn't want to give it the capability of receiving it if they added it later.

4) Do the current LNBs have that "slightly bigger" feedhorn the patent says is necessary to receive RDBS in addition to the Ka with the same feedhorn? It doesn't show dimensions, so it would take someone who is an expert in this field to calculate what the dimensions would be for each and compare to the current SL3/SL5.

5) If they add Ka lo and Ka hi from 101, and RDBS from 99 and 103, it seems they almost have to add more cables for a (legacy) LNB, as utilizing 2350 - 2850 on all four cables wouldn't provide nearly enough bandwidth. In fact, they wouldn't be able to fit on _six_ cables without going above 2150 MHz! This is maybe what was behind the references I found in the DSWM patents & paper to the current SWM solution "not providing enough flexibility to increase the number of inputs". One would assume they'd go above 2150 MHz before going to 8 cables, but if by the time that's necessary there are DSWM solutions with as many as 26 tuners this would be an issue only for commercial/MDU markets, not residential, so who knows?


----------



## P Smith

to answer to the questions, someone would disclose confidential info , which is not happen before official statements come out
or we will get devices [switch, LNBF, etc] in our hand;
we could get spectrum though, but without proper LNBF [RDBS] it would be daunting task


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> to answer to the questions, someone would disclose confidential info , which is not happen before official statements come out
> or we will get devices [switch, LNBF, etc] in our hand;
> we could get spectrum though, but without proper LNBF [RDBS] it would be daunting task


How so? The first three are about FCC filings, which are public info. I admit the 4th probably treads far too close to releasing confidential info for anyone who works for Directv.

The last shouldn't have been numbered, it was more my speculation that I was looking for someone to poke holes in. I certainly wasn't trying to invite Directv employees to tell me if I'm right or not.


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> How so? The first three are about FCC filings, which are public info. I admit the 4th probably treads far too close to releasing confidential info for anyone who works for Directv.
> 
> The last shouldn't have been numbered, it was more my speculation that I was looking for someone to poke holes in.* I certainly wasn't trying to invite Directv employees to tell me if I'm right or not.*


I hope somehow someone will find a way to give us some clues ...


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> I know this was discussed a few months ago but I don't recall ever seeing anything conclusive. Does Directv have Ka licenses for 101? I decided to read that patent posted way back for the selectively reflective surface on a LNB and what it actually lays out is this:
> 
> The reflective surface sits in the middle of the arm, in between the focal point of the dish and the 101 feedhorn. It reflects Ku, and passes Ka, so the Ku feedhorn moves to the near end of the arm next to the dish. Thus there are 3 Ka feedhorns in the usual spot. Drawings show the center feedhorn for 101 can "optionally" be slightly smaller since it doesn't need to receive down to 17.3 GHz like the 99 and 103 do (i.e., no RDBS) It also mentions that the efficiency of the Ka feedhorns for 99 and 103 will be improved by not having their geometry compromised due to the Ku feedhorn for 101 located between them. Anything that could possibly help even a little with rain fade will be welcomed by many, I'm sure!
> 
> The patent states that Directv has licenses to broadcast Ka from 101, and has applied for licenses to broadcast RDBS from 99 and 103. The filing date on this patent was in 2008, so things may have changed since then, but unless they've since given up that Ka license for 101 they should still have it. We know D14 will be broadcasting Ka hi and RDBS from 99, and that D15 has RDBS, Ka and Ku transponders, but don't know for sure where it will go.
> 
> This begs a few questions:
> 
> 1) Does Directv still hold the license for Ka from 101? It seems the discussion about whether it would be possible to receive Ka with a 2* spacing is moot, because why patent a design for something that can't work. They not only think they can, but planned on doing it unless they since gave up the Ka license for 101.
> 
> 2) Does Directv have a RDBS license for 101? If not, who got it? Maybe some horsetrading with them would be possible if Directv wanted it to streamline things.
> 
> 3) Did Directv get the RDBS license for 103 the patent says they applied for? Unless D15 is going to 103, which seems unlikely but isn't impossible, they don't have anything publicly announced that would provide that. But that doesn't mean if they introduced a new LNB they wouldn't want to give it the capability of receiving it if they added it later.
> 
> 4) Do the current LNBs have that "slightly bigger" feedhorn the patent says is necessary to receive RDBS in addition to the Ka with the same feedhorn? It doesn't show dimensions, so it would take someone who is an expert in this field to calculate what the dimensions would be for each and compare to the current SL3/SL5.
> 
> 5) If they add Ka lo and Ka hi from 101, and RDBS from 99 and 103, it seems they almost have to add more cables for a (legacy) LNB, as utilizing 2350 - 2850 on all four cables wouldn't provide nearly enough bandwidth. In fact, they wouldn't be able to fit on _six_ cables without going above 2150 MHz! This is maybe what was behind the references I found in the DSWM patents & paper to the current SWM solution "not providing enough flexibility to increase the number of inputs". One would assume they'd go above 2150 MHz before going to 8 cables, but if by the time that's necessary there are DSWM solutions with as many as 26 tuners this would be an issue only for commercial/MDU markets, not residential, so who knows?


Curios why you think d15 going to 103 isn't likely. I think thats probably most likely I think... Unless they are going to use it to replace a sat at 101.


----------



## HoTat2

inkahauts said:


> Curios why you think d15 going to 103 isn't likely. I think thats probably most likely I think... Unless they are going to use it to replace a sat at 101.





inkahauts said:


> Curios why you think d15 going to 103 isn't likely. I think thats probably most likely I think... Unless they are going to use it to replace a sat at 101.


That would be my guess as well;

With D10 ailing and some of it's spotbeams problematic from the start, I'd look for D15 to have a Ka band payload as fully B-band like D10 and 11's are, and go to 103 as it's "normal" operating slot as the new 103cb replacing D10 which may be relegated as a backup in-orbit-spare.

And in addition provide a "full" CONUS wide RDBS capability from 103 as the actual "RB-2," (assuming Spectrum-5's challenges have all been fully quashed now.) as opposed to the current spot-beamed RB-2A payload aboard D12 used for advanced market testing purposes I think.

However, since D15 is to be equipped with a reportedly 30 transponder Ku band payload as well. It could be used to swing over to 101 or some other Ku band slot and provide transponder capacity in an emergency.


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> <snip>
> 1) Does Directv still hold the license for Ka from 101? It seems the discussion about whether it would be possible to receive Ka with a 2* spacing is moot, because why patent a design for something that can't work. They not only think they can, but planned on doing it unless they since gave up the Ka license for 101.
> <snip>


Yes they do. In this year's 10K the following statement appeared:

"We hold licenses in three orbital slots (99° west longitude, or WL, *101° WL*, and 103° WL) in the *Ka-Band spectrum*." (emphasis added)



slice1900 said:


> <snip>
> 
> 2) Does Directv have a RDBS license for 101? If not, who got it? Maybe some horsetrading with them would be possible if Directv wanted it to streamline things.
> 
> <snip>


It would appear not...in the same 10K filing:

"In 2007, the FCC adopted new service and licensing rules for broadcasting satellite services in the 17.3-17.8 GHz and 24.75-
25.25 GHz bands, or 17/24 GHz BSS. This spectrum, also known as the "reverse band" (in that transmissions from these
satellites to consumers would occur in spectrum currently used for uplinking programming to traditional DBS satellites), could
provide a new source of additional DTH capacity. *DIRECTV currently holds authorizations for satellites in this band at two*
*orbital locations*. However, foreign operators who may have international priority have recently brought into use conflicting ITU
network filings at the two orbital locations at which we are licensed. Depending upon the ultimate disposition of those filings,
our use of one or both of these licenses may be limited or precluded entirely." (emphasis added)

Since conventional wisdom is that they hold RDBS licenses at 99 and 103, this would seem to preclude licenses at 101.


----------



## HoTat2

Diana C said:


> Yes they do. In this year's 10K the following statement appeared:
> 
> "We hold licenses in three orbital slots (99° west longitude, or WL, *101° WL*, and 103° WL) in the *Ka-Band spectrum*." (emphasis added)
> 
> It would appear not...in the same 10K filing:
> 
> ... However, foreign operators who may have international priority have recently brought into use conflicting ITU
> network filings at the two orbital locations at which we are licensed. Depending upon the ultimate disposition of those filings,
> our use of one or both of these licenses may be limited or precluded entirely." (emphasis added)
> 
> Since conventional wisdom is that they hold RDBS licenses at 99 and 103, this would seem to preclude licenses at 101.


Humph;

I wasn't aware of any foreign challenges under the auspices of the ITU to DIRECTV's full CONUS use of the 99W slot for RDBS service. Only the Netherlands based company "Spectrum-Five's" persistent wining to such use at 103, which I thought had already been thoroughly quashed by the FCC's International bureau which would take precedence over any ITU ruling for domestic satellite service to the CONUS.

Guess not based on this statement in the 10K filing.

But then again, I've always been poor at understanding such legalistic procedures and regulations anyhow. International or domestic.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> Yes they do. In this year's 10K the following statement appeared:
> 
> "We hold licenses in three orbital slots (99° west longitude, or WL, *101° WL*, and 103° WL) in the *Ka-Band spectrum*." (emphasis added)
> 
> It would appear not...in the same 10K filing:
> 
> "In 2007, the FCC adopted new service and licensing rules for broadcasting satellite services in the 17.3-17.8 GHz and 24.75-
> 25.25 GHz bands, or 17/24 GHz BSS. This spectrum, also known as the "reverse band" (in that transmissions from these
> satellites to consumers would occur in spectrum currently used for uplinking programming to traditional DBS satellites), could
> provide a new source of additional DTH capacity. *DIRECTV currently holds authorizations for satellites in this band at two*
> *orbital locations*. However, foreign operators who may have international priority have recently brought into use conflicting ITU
> network filings at the two orbital locations at which we are licensed. Depending upon the ultimate disposition of those filings,
> our use of one or both of these licenses may be limited or precluded entirely." (emphasis added)
> 
> Since conventional wisdom is that they hold RDBS licenses at 99 and 103, this would seem to preclude licenses at 101.


Why would having RDBS licenses at 99 and 103 preclude a license at 101? I assumed since RDBS spectrum was very similar to Ka, it would have the same 2* separation requirement. Is that not the case?

If the 2* separation is the issue, given that they hold RDBS licenses at 99 and 103, is there any chance they could ask for and receive permission to operate RDBS from 101 so long as their hold/operate from 99 and 103 as well? Or does the FCC stick to their rules, even if the potential interference would be a company interfering with itself? The patent suggesting they might size the 101 feedhorn to receive RDBS suggests they were at least considering this as an option.


----------



## JosephB

Do those RDBS spots at 99 and 103 belong to the US? In other words, is the international operator attempting to get those licenses planning to use them in the US? If so, I don't see that as the end of the road for DirecTV. I don't see a new entrant doing well in the US market and would expect those licenses to become available in a future bankruptcy filing.


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> Why would having RDBS licenses at 99 and 103 preclude a license at 101? I assumed since RDBS spectrum was very similar to Ka, it would have the same 2* separation requirement. Is that not the case?
> 
> If the 2* separation is the issue, given that they hold RDBS licenses at 99 and 103, is there any chance they could ask for and receive permission to operate RDBS from 101 so long as their hold/operate from 99 and 103 as well? Or does the FCC stick to their rules, even if the potential interference would be a company interfering with itself? The patent suggesting they might size the 101 feedhorn to receive RDBS suggests they were at least considering this as an option.


When I said RDBS at 99/103 "precluded" RDBS at 101 I was referring solely to licensing and the statements in the 10K. If they hold RDBS licenses at only two slots, and they hold RDBS licenses at 99 and 103, then they can't logically hold any licenses at 101.

The potential for earth-to-space (e2s) and space-to-earth (s2e) operations on the same frequency band causing interference is, of course, driven by the degree to which the "undesired" signal can not be descriminated from the "desired" signal at the receiving antenna. In the case of a satellite that is a few degrees away the chances for interference is greatly reduced by the highly directional nature of the receiving antennas used at both ends. However, to have a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna on the same satellite, using the same frequency band, would create a situation almost guaranteed to cause interference. For that reason, I'm very skeptical of the possibility of RDBS from 101. However, I see no reason that RDBS could not be used from 99 and 103, and Ka used from all three slots.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> That would be my guess as well;
> 
> With D10 ailing and some of it's spotbeams problematic from the start, I'd look for D15 to have a Ka band payload as fully B-band like D10 and 11's are, and go to 103 as it's "normal" operating slot as the new 103cb replacing D10 which may be relegated as a backup in-orbit-spare.
> 
> And in addition provide a "full" CONUS wide RDBS capability from 103 as the actual "RB-2," (assuming Spectrum-5's challenges have all been fully quashed now.) as opposed to the current spot-beamed RB-2A payload aboard D12 used for advanced market testing purposes I think.
> 
> However, since D15 is to be equipped with a reportedly 30 transponder Ku band payload as well. It could be used to swing over to 101 or some other Ku band slot and provide transponder capacity in an emergency.


I thought the "amelioration" on D10 had been successful? Is that not the case?

It would seem rather wasteful to take D10 out of service completely if the problem is just with a few spotbeams. Maybe it will go to 101 and provide Ka lo service, after D15 takes its place? Even if it does have some problematic spot beams, they'd need another satellite at 101 to provide Ka hi anyway, so perhaps a "D16" would pick up any slack on D10's spotbeams.

This may make more sense even if D10 is fully functional. D15 would only be able to use its Ka transponders from 101, its Ku capability would be idle until they retired one of the other satellites there, and its RDBS capability would also go unused unless Directv is granted permission to broadcast RDBS from 101. D15 have both its Ka and RDBS capability used from 103, with Ku as a spare for the future if was ever rotated to 101 down the road, like I'm suggesting for D10.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> When I said RDBS at 99/103 "precluded" RDBS at 101 I was referring solely to licensing and the statements in the 10K. If they hold RDBS licenses at only two slots, and they hold RDBS licenses at 99 and 103, then they can't logically hold any licenses at 101.
> 
> The potential for earth-to-space (e2s) and space-to-earth (s2e) operations on the same frequency band causing interference is, of course, driven by the degree to which the "undesired" signal can not be descriminated from the "desired" signal at the receiving antenna. In the case of a satellite that is a few degrees away the chances for interference is greatly reduced by the highly directional nature of the receiving antennas used at both ends. However, to have a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna on the same satellite, using the same frequency band, would create a situation almost guaranteed to cause interference. For that reason, I'm very skeptical of the possibility of RDBS from 101. However, I see no reason that RDBS could not be used from 99 and 103, and Ka used from all three slots.


When you say "to have a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna on the same satellite, using the same frequency band, would create a situation almost guaranteed to cause interference" do you mean on the same satellite, or at the same orbital? Presumably if D15 was designed to broadcast RDBS, it isn't designed to use RDBS for uplinks as well if that will be a problem?

I get the feeling I'm missing something here...obviously I'm not terribly familiar with how all this works, so my apologies if this is a dumb question


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> ...D15 have both its Ka and RDBS capability used from 103, with Ku as a spare for the future if was ever rotated to 101 down the road, like I'm suggesting for D10.


Keep in mind that the ITU and FCC are considering narrowing the *Ku* spacing requirement to 2 degrees. If Ku spectrum were to become available at 99 and 103, and DirecTV already had satellites in those positions, they would have a significant advantage in the application and allocation process.


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> When you say "to have a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna on the same satellite, using the same frequency band, would create a situation almost guaranteed to cause interference" do you mean on the same satellite, or at the same orbital? Presumably if D15 was designed to broadcast RDBS, it isn't designed to use RDBS for uplinks as well if that will be a problem?
> 
> I get the feeling I'm missing something here...obviously I'm not terribly familiar with how all this works, so my apologies if this is a dumb question


On the same physical satellite is nearly impossible to manage. Within the degree or so that satellites assigned to the same slot are positioned it is extremely difficult to manage.

We may have an answer should Spectrum Five ever launch a satellite to 119.25 degrees. They have authority to use 17.3-17.7 GHz for space-to-earth, while Echostar is using 17.3-17.8 GHz for earth-to-space at 118.8 - less than a half degree away.


----------



## yosoyellobo

slice1900 said:


> I thought the "amelioration" on D10 had been successful? Is that not the case?
> .


Amelioration. First and last time I heard that word was here.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> Keep in mind that the ITU and FCC are considering narrowing the *Ku* spacing requirement to 2 degrees. If Ku spectrum were to become available at 99 and 103, and DirecTV already had satellites in those positions, they would have a significant advantage in the application and allocation process.


That's very interesting, and that makes the idea of a Ku capable satellite sitting at 103 a very good one.

They'd need to extend that little selectively reflective surface on the LNB arm out to either side and angle it a bit to reflect back Ku from 103 and 99 in addition to 101, and add feedhorns for them on either side of the 101 Ku feedhorn. The LNB arm might start getting pretty crowded  The possibility of adding Ka from 101, Ku from 99 & 103, not to mention RDBS from 99 and 103, certainly makes comments in the DSWM paper about supporting "many more satellites" ring much more true.

I think at this point I completely agree with everyone telling me that D15 will go to 103. It would make sense to then move D10 to 101.


----------



## HoTat2

JosephB said:


> Do those RDBS spots at 99 and 103 belong to the US? In other words, is the international operator attempting to get those licenses planning to use them in the US? If so, I don't see that as the end of the road for DirecTV. I don't see a new entrant doing well in the US market and would expect those licenses to become available in a future bankruptcy filing.


While I can't say what's the situation with RDBS service at 99W;

IIRC, the dispute at 103W involved a Netherlands company called "Spectrum Five" which wants a license to provide a future DTH RDBS service into Canada, while DIRECTV wants to provide a CONUS wide RDBS service from 103W as well.

And since you obviously can't precisely contour a radio beam to strictly follow the U.S. Canadian border, both can't operate there, with nationwide services anyhow, at the same time as they would mutually interfere.

Anyway, to make a long story short, when the bidding process for RDBS licences was commenced by the ITU some years ago, DIRECTV got their bid in first ahead of Spectrum Five, for the 103 slot and was originally awarded the license designated "RB-2" on the "first-come-first serve" basis of the bidding process.

However, DIRECTV made a technical error in some of their proposed satellite signal strength computations resulting in an overpowered satellite, to which Spectrum Five seized upon and claimed DIRECTV's license grant should therefore be invalidated under compliance with the rules of the ITU's submission requirements, and their bid should advance ahead of DIRECTV's.

The FCC's international bureau disagrees and has rejected S5's protest, but apparently the ITU hasn't so I guess it's still hung up this way.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> I thought the "amelioration" on D10 had been successful? Is that not the case?
> 
> It would seem rather wasteful to take D10 out of service completely if the problem is just with a few spotbeams. Maybe it will go to 101 and provide Ka lo service, after D15 takes its place? Even if it does have some problematic spot beams, they'd need another satellite at 101 to provide Ka hi anyway, so perhaps a "D16" would pick up any slack on D10's spotbeams.
> 
> This may make more sense even if D10 is fully functional. D15 would only be able to use its Ka transponders from 101, its Ku capability would be idle until they retired one of the other satellites there, and its RDBS capability would also go unused unless Directv is granted permission to broadcast RDBS from 101. D15 have both its Ka and RDBS capability used from 103, with Ku as a spare for the future if was ever rotated to 101 down the road, like I'm suggesting for D10.


It's not just the spotbeam issue, and to my knowledge DIRECTV never reported any actual success of that "amelioration" process.

But more importantly, D10 suffered a failure to its main guidance processor and is operating on it's backup. This is one reason the development, launch, and deployment D14 and D15 are being expedited.


----------



## JosephB

HoTat2 said:


> While I can't say what's the situation with RDBS service at 99W;
> 
> IIRC, the dispute at 103W involved a Netherlands company called "Spectrum Five" which wants a license to provide a future DTH RDBS service into Canada, while DIRECTV wants to provide a CONUS wide RDBS service from 103W as well.
> 
> And since you obviously can't precisely contour a radio beam to strictly follow the U.S. Canadian border, both can't operate there, with nationwide services anyhow, at the same time as they would mutually interfere.
> 
> Anyway, to make a long story short, when the bidding process for RDBS licences was commenced by the ITU some years ago, DIRECTV got their bid in first ahead of Spectrum Five, for the 103 slot and was originally awarded the license designated "RB-2" on the "first-come-first serve" basis of the bidding process.
> 
> However, DIRECTV made a technical error in some of their proposed satellite signal strength computations resulting in an overpowered satellite, to which Spectrum Five seized upon and claimed DIRECTV's license grant should therefore be invalidated under compliance with the rules of the ITU's submission requirements, and their bid should advance ahead of DIRECTV's.
> 
> The FCC's international bureau disagrees and has rejected S5's protest, but apparently the ITU hasn't so I guess it's still hung up this way.


I was under the impression that slots are divided up by the ITU to countries, not companies. Is this a change in the way licenses are handled or are these slots/frequencies special in some way vs. traditional slots?


----------



## Diana C

Just as a point of clarification, Spectrum Five is a US company. They are headquartered at 1776 K Street N.W., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006 and their president is David Wilson.


----------



## inkahauts

It's not just the spotbeam issue, and to my knowledge DIRECTV never reported any actual success of that "amelioration" process.

But more importantly, D10 suffered a failure to its main guidance processor and is operating on it's backup. This is one reason the development, launch, and deployment D14 and D15 are being expedited.


I thought they said it did work, but then turned them all off when d12 went there and is using its spots instead. But who knows, it's been a while, I could be dreaming.


----------



## JosephB

Diana C said:


> Just as a point of clarification, Spectrum Five is a US company. They are headquartered at 1776 K Street N.W., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006 and their president is David Wilson.


Given that address, I have to think that is probably just a shell company created so they will have a US-domiciled entity to deal with the FCC?


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> That's very interesting, and that makes the idea of a Ku capable satellite sitting at 103 a very good one.
> 
> They'd need to extend that little selectively reflective surface on the LNB arm out to either side and angle it a bit to reflect back Ku from 103 and 99 in addition to 101, and add feedhorns for them on either side of the 101 Ku feedhorn. The LNB arm might start getting pretty crowded  The possibility of adding Ka from 101, Ku from 99 & 103, not to mention RDBS from 99 and 103, certainly makes comments in the DSWM paper about supporting "many more satellites" ring much more true.
> 
> I think at this point I completely agree with everyone telling me that D15 will go to 103. It would make sense to then move D10 to 101.


Why not simply make an entire reflector out this "selectively reflective" material? (I am assuming that it is transparent to Ka in both directions.) It might then be feasible to place a Ku reflector in front of the Ka reflector, focusing the two bands at two different feedhorn locations (say, displaced vertically by an inch or two).


----------



## Diana C

JosephB said:


> Given that address, I have to think that is probably just a shell company created so they will have a US-domiciled entity to deal with the FCC?


It is the only address listed for the company in any investment resource. If there is a Spectrum Five office in the Netherlands, they are a stealth operation.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> Why not simply make an entire reflector out this "selectively reflective" material? (I am assuming that it is transparent to Ka in both directions.) It might then be feasible to place a Ku reflector in front of the Ka reflector, focusing the two bands at two different feedhorn locations (say, displaced vertically by an inch or two).


That's an interesting idea, I see some possible pros and cons with it.

Pros:
May be a more durable solution than having a little bit sticking up from the middle of the LNB arm
Could simplify LNB design having the feedhorns closer together

Cons:
While the material passes Ka through, that doesn't mean it necessarily does so with zero loss, any loss would be doubled
More costly, even if the material costs the same as whatever the dish is made of, a second reflector is more material
Not possible as a Slimline upgrade like the LNB+arm replacement (but would be viable for a new dish type)

I read somewhere that the Slimline made some compromises in its design to receive such a wide arc of satellites, and reception of 110 and 119 was done at a small expense to reception efficiency at 99 and 103. I have no idea if that's true or not, but if it is it would make it more likely that Directv might introduce an entirely new dish, along with a LNB+arm upgrade to current Slimlines. They'd replicate what little content there is on 119 on the new bands, so there would no longer be a need to receive 110 and 119 on the new dishes, and could gain whatever extra efficiency was lost making it able to receive the wide arc.

The reason I bring up durability in the pros is that I can't help wondering how that little bit sticking up that reflects Ku handles stuff like bird poop getting on it, or taking a shot from a hailstone at just the right angle. If you get a dent or two in a full sized reflector from hail, it might reduce the efficiency a big but will still work. If you get that little reflector bent just a tiny bit, you probably lose Ku from 101 entirely, which is a big problem.


----------



## dpeters11

Diana C said:


> Just as a point of clarification, Spectrum Five is a US company. They are headquartered at 1776 K Street N.W., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006 and their president is David Wilson.


Looks like that is the address of an attorney's office, Mallon and McCool. But their Practice area list doesn't really seem to fit. Maybe they share office space.


----------



## Diana C

dpeters11 said:


> Looks like that is the address of an attorney's office, Mallon and McCool. But their Practice area list doesn't really seem to fit. Maybe they share office space.


Seems that Suite 200 is a shared office space facility...a number of firms with offices outside the district list it as their "downtown" office address. One of those firms is Wiley Rein LLC, based in McLean, VA. The "Wiley" in Wiley Rein is Richard E. Wiley, former chairman of the FCC and Spectrum Five's outside counsel. Wiley Rein has a robust (80 attorney) Communications Practice.

Found their Dutch location:
Spectrum Five , B.V.
Herikerbergweg 238 Luna Arena
Amsterdam Zuidoost, Noord-Holland, 1101 CM The Netherlands
Phone: +31-205755600


----------



## David Ortiz

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-76A1.pdf

4 degree spacing for RDBS. Significant paragraphs in the PDF: 66, 73.


----------



## slice1900

David Ortiz said:


> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-76A1.pdf
> 
> 4 degree spacing for RDBS. Significant paragraphs in the PDF: 66, 73.


Thank you, that's good info. Strange that they approved 2* spacing for Ka in the late 90s, and are considering switching to 2* spacing for Ku, but use 4* spacing for RDBS. Any ideas as to why that might be? Just being careful until RDBS is proven in the field?

Would the FCC consider a proposal from Directv to grant them an "exception" (or whatever it is called in FCC lingo) and allow them to broadcast RDBS from 101, so long as they continue to own and operate the rights to broadcast RDBS from 99 and 103? There shouldn't be any concerns about interfering with anyone else, given that Directv could only interfere with themselves in doing so. Or does the FCC not work that way, and would never consider such a proposal?

I wonder if there are any examples of such an exception where spacing is violated between two slots held by the same organization, which Directv could cite if it were to make such a request? I have no idea if Directv currently has any plans/desires to operate RDBS from 101, its just that it was mentioned as a possibility in that patent, so they at least gave it some consideration at that time. If/when they introduce a new LNB, we'll know the answer by comparing the size of the center Ka feedhorn to that of the two on either side...


----------



## Diana C

The FCC moves in mysterious ways at times. However, they are usually pretty rigorous about development milestones. I haven't read all the FCC orders about RDBS and so don't know what the launch and operation milestones are for the various slots, but if DirecTV can't put something in place at a given slot to at least make SOME use of the license by the milestone date then they could lose the licenses.

Bottom line: if they could put some RDBS assets in place at 99 and 103 before the deadline for those slots, and assuming they have (or could acquire) RDBS licenses at 101, then they could possibly use RDBS from 101 as desired. But that's a lot of "ifs."

Honestly, if they can work out the feedhorn physics and fabrication challenges, I think it makes more sense for them to work towards Ka and RDBS from 99 and 103, and Ka and DBS (Ku) from 101. Moving DirecTV-12 to 101 would give them the option to experiment with the RDBS payload on that satellite and work out the interference issues. If and when the FCC licenses DBS from 99 and 103, DirecTV would then understand the issues and could make an informed decision about how (or if) these assets could be developed.

The thing that makes this attractive, IMHO, is that all this capacity would provide a good platform for the foreseeable future with a single, relatively compact dish. The assets at 110 and 119 could then either be sold off, or used for some niche services (much the way they are being used now).


----------



## RAD

Since this thread is supposed to be about D14 how about making a new thread to fight over the size of the dish and who has a bigger one?


----------



## James Long

RAD said:


> Since this thread is supposed to be about D14 how about making a new thread to fight over the size of the dish and who has a bigger one?


Good idea: DirecTV Dish Size - Compact?

Please guys and gals ... lets keep this thread on D14.


----------



## slice1900

Since D15 has more transponders (or at least more types) than D14 (Ka & RDBS, plus Ku) but is only a 16kw satellite versus D14's 20kw, does that mean it cannot and is not intended to ever be able to power all its transponders at once? I assume D14 will be able to power all its transponders, since it has fewer and 25% more power. Unless D14 has a large power surplus for some reason, it would seem that D15 not only couldn't power everything at once, it might not even be able to power its Ka and RDBS simultaneously, unless it has fewer of them than D14 does.

Do transponders always require the same amount of input power for a given frequency/strength, or do they benefit from technological improvements to increase their efficiency which might allow D15 to have "better" transponders than D14? Are there other ways to reduce a satellite's power draw, such as converting some of its CONUS transponders to spot beams? Assuming that's possible, there is another satellite that can take over its CONUS beams, and assuming spot beams actually require less power 

I don't suppose anyone knows exact counts of each type of transponder D14 and D15 have? And if you can't change a CONUS transponder to a spot beam transponder and back again, how many there are of each type? Do satellites carry "spare" transponders, in case one malfunctions? Or do they just have unused capacity, which they use only if one of the satellites it is sharing duty with had a major malfunction?


----------



## JosephB

The power question, or at least the premise of it, probably depends on whether or not a satellite is usually operated at or near it's full power capacity. Maybe they're just shrinking the margins of the capacity to values closer to what they actually use


----------



## inkahauts

Satelites have spare transponders in case one dies. They have them listed in the specs usually. 

I thought d14 and d15 both had all three freq transponders. Are they built on completely different platforms? Maybe one platform takes less power or has big solar panels to recharge to offset extra power supply backup? I have no clue on this but now I'm curious too.


----------



## HoTat2

To note;

Minor issue I guess;

DIRECTV seeks permission to reorient D5 (Tempo 1) at 110 so its beam footprint is further to the east to better cover Puerto Rico.

This means goodbye to any more 110 signal strength readings for subscribers in the western U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii.

Not that it really makes any difference since it's programming is completely duplicated on other satellites serving CONUS as the narrative states and thus it's not being used in the CONUS, Al, and Hi. anyhow.


----------



## inkahauts

I don think they have used 110 for us broadcasts for ages...


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> I don think they have used 110 for us broadcasts for ages...


That's why I've often wondered how DIRECTV managed to keep their license for that slot. I'm sure the competition would have loved to have access to those unused transponders.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Are they built on completely different platforms?


DIRECTV 14 is an SSL LS-1300 while DIRECTV 15 is an Astrium Eurostar E3000.

Both are slated to launch on an Ariane 5.

According to Gunter's Space Page (and Satbeams), DIRECTV 15 will be outfitted with 30 Ku, 24 Ka and 18 RDBS transponders. Since it is a backup bird (as DIRECTV 12 was originally slated to be), I'm guessing it won't have both the Ku and Ka payloads going at the same time and it probably wouldn't be hitting the ground running. Perhaps DIRECTV 15 is kind of like a donut spare. 

According to Satbeams, DIRECTV 14 is planned for Ka (with a lot of spot beams). As is typical with DIRECTV, the RDBS transponders would appear to go unused for general consumption (or maybe Satbeams doesn't see the point in tracking them).


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> That's why I've often wondered how DIRECTV managed to keep their license for that slot. I'm sure the competition would have loved to have access to those unused transponders.


The transponders do not need to be used for US broadcast or broadcast to customers. Find the rule that DirecTV would be breaking if they were not using those transponders for US customers.

Besides, Puerto Rico is part of the US ... so the suggestion that they are not being used for US broadcast is incorrect.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> According to Satbeams, DIRECTV 14 is planned for Ka (with a lot of spot beams). As is typical with DIRECTV, the RDBS transponders would appear to go unused for general consumption (or maybe Satbeams doesn't see the point in tracking them).


They probably show them unused because they don't know what is slated for RDBS yet. No one outside Directv does. RDBS won't be useful to anyone until there is a new LNB that can receive it. Once that has been introduced we'll probably have a better idea what RDBS would be used for.

One possibility is that some RDBS bandwidth will be used to replicate the content on 119 and 95. Replicating 119 will allow the new LNB to drop the requirement to receive 110/119, and free up the IF bands that was using. Replicating 95 will free up the flex port on external SWMs, allowing the new LNB to use both. The new LNB will require 6 coaxes. It _has to_, there's simply no way to fit everything into 4 coax. RDBS from 99 & 103 and Ka from 101 requires adding 4x400 MHz RDBS bands and 4x500 MHz Ka bands to the stack plan. It would need to go up to and above 3 GHz to fit into 4 coax.

This idea hinges on the possibility that existing SWM8/SWM16s would be compatible with replacing the 110/119 IF blocks with 400 or 500 MHz blocks of 36 MHz transponders, and flex ports being capable of utilizing the full range of 250 - 2150 MHz with 400 or 500 MHz blocks of 36 MHz wide transponders. To date, we've seen only the ability to use the 950 - 1450 MHz range on flex ports, and only with 24 Mhz wide Ku transponders. So its a big if, but maybe possible if the flex ports live up to their name. If existing SWM8 & SWM16 hardware cannot do this, while there are still some benefits to "one dish to rule them all" for new installs, it becomes less desirable to use bandwidth in this way.

Another possibility is that RDBS will be used for spot beams only, if there are issues using it nationally (due to that Spectrum Five battle over 103, or interference for people living too close to RDBS ground stations) If so, it could be used for locals, as well as private corporate channels that are only needed in certain areas rather than nationwide. All those markets lacking HD locals could be upgraded to receive them via RDBS. If Directv wanted to give people more subchannels, they could add them on RDBS spots. Most customers don't care about subchannels, so it wouldn't require a ton of upgrades.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> ... Another possibility is that RDBS will be used for spot beams only, if there are issues using it nationally (due to that Spectrum Five battle over 103, *or interference for people living too close to RDBS ground stations*) If so, it could be used for locals, as well as private corporate channels that are only needed in certain areas rather than nationwide. All those markets lacking HD locals could be upgraded to receive them via RDBS. If Directv wanted to give people more subchannels, they could add them on RDBS spots. Most customers don't care about subchannels, so it wouldn't require a ton of upgrades.


Just a point of correction;

The concern for potential interference to RDBS reception on the ground involves subscribers attempting to receive channels in the RDBS band (17.3-17.7 GHz in the U.S.) being too close to satellite ground stations up-linking on the standard DBS frequencies of 17.3-17.8 GHz.

And regarding the possibility of future spotbeam use for RDBS, though the exact specifics D15's transponder payloads are not publicly known yet, D14's at least have already been long filed with the FCC as a CONUS beam for it's RDBS payload.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Just a point of correction;
> 
> The concern for potential interference to RDBS reception on the ground involves subscribers attempting to receive channels in the RDBS band (17.3-17.7 GHz in the U.S.) being too close to satellite ground stations up-linking on the standard DBS frequencies of 17.3-17.8 GHz.
> 
> And regarding the possibility of future spotbeam use for RDBS, though the exact specifics D15's transponder payloads are not publicly known yet, D14's at least have already been long filed with the FCC as a CONUS beam for it's RDBS payload.


I thought that was what I said 

Thanks for the info on D14's RDBS transponders. If they plan to use CONUS RDBS with D14, then the testing they surely did with the few RDBS transponders on existing satellites must have proven interference would not be an issue.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> I thought that was what I said  ....


I interpreted your earlier statement as interference to RDBS reception by subscribers located too close to an "RDBS ground station." 

Where the RDBS ground stations in the CONUS actually up-link in the 24.750 - 25.150 GHz range and should not interfere with nearby RDBS subscriber reception at 17.3 - 17.7 GHz.

But a conventional 17.3 - 17.8 GHz DBS up-link station operating nearby certainly could due to transmission dish spillover.


----------



## inkahauts

The transponders do not need to be used for US broadcast or broadcast to customers. Find the rule that DirecTV would be breaking if they were not using those transponders for US customers.

Besides, Puerto Rico is part of the US ... so the suggestion that they are not being used for US broadcast is incorrect.


I should have said conus us.


----------



## inkahauts

DIRECTV 14 is an SSL LS-1300 while DIRECTV 15 is an Astrium Eurostar E3000.

Both are slated to launch on an Ariane 5.

According to Gunter's Space Page (and Satbeams), DIRECTV 15 will be outfitted with 30 Ku, 24 Ka and 18 RDBS transponders. Since it is a backup bird (as DIRECTV 12 was originally slated to be), I'm guessing it won't have both the Ku and Ka payloads going at the same time and it probably wouldn't be hitting the ground running. Perhaps DIRECTV 15 is kind of like a donut spare. 

According to Satbeams, DIRECTV 14 is planned for Ka (with a lot of spot beams). As is typical with DIRECTV, the RDBS transponders would appear to go unused for general consumption (or maybe Satbeams doesn't see the point in tracking them).


I am sure they will have that broadcasting ASAP. The questions is simply when and where and which freq. I could easily see them moving sats around to provide a more balanced attack if needed. D14 and d15 at 103 and 99 so they have bss at both locations, and then maneuvering d10, d11, and d12 to maximize freq use age amoung ka and ku There's no reason not to especially if they can use it to add capacity. No reason to launch it if they aren't going to use it immediately. No one is using a brand new massive sat as an in orbit spare that I have seen. 

And they call them spares in case something goes wrong but I'm sure that's plan b and plan a is to expand service just like d12 was. But for investors, you have to cal it plan b so you don't get hit in the market if one dies on the way up.


And what the heck yuan as usual with DIRECTV and bss? They have never launch a for consumer bss sat. They have only launched a couple transponders to test with. That's an absurd statement and I'm sure they will be using a full payload of bss for something, no one knows what yet though.


----------



## slice1900

As you say, D14 will go to 99 and D15 to 103. But it seems like one of the 103 sats, probably D10, will move to 101 once D15 is fully operational and takes over its job at 103. They need to start providing Ka from 101 at some point, or at least have a plan in that direction, or they'll lose the license they've been granted for that, right?


----------



## inkahauts

Yes, I believe so.

I need to research it, but... Need to look at what freq they have at 99, 101, and 103 and compare it with all the satelites they have that can broadcast in those freq and see what ways they can spread out and get the most freq usage from them all. D15!could very possibly allow one of the d10 gen units to move to 101 as you suggest. I'm not sure there is any possible gain in bandwidth by doing it before d15 launches. D14 I think can add and all 99 stuff be at full capacity and not interfer.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> They probably show them unused because they don't know what is slated for RDBS yet. No one outside Directv does.


I had forgotten that DIRECTV took the RDBS payload under their own responsibility (or some such) in order to get a build license.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> They need to start providing Ka from 101 at some point, or at least have a plan in that direction, or they'll lose the license they've been granted for that, right?


Was it determined to be possible to get both Ku and Ka from the same slot with one dish?


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> The questions is simply when and where and which freq. I could easily see them moving sats around to provide a more balanced attack if needed. D14 and d15 at 103 and 99 so they have bss at both locations, and then maneuvering d10, d11, and d12 to maximize freq use age amoung ka and ku There's no reason not to especially if they can use it to add capacity.


What frequencies aren't already in use?


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Was it determined to be possible to get both Ku and Ka from the same slot with one dish?


I don't understand why you'd even question this, as it is so damned obvious between the patent providing one way and simple common sense providing others.

Not only that, but why would Directv have applied for and be given a license to provide Ka from 101 when they already have a Ku license from 101, if both they and the FCC weren't 100% certain this could be done? Do you think they're stupid?

Haven't you already asked this question before and had it explained to you? Do you just have a short memory or are you trying to be a jerk?


----------



## slice1900

I noticed something interesting. The application to operate D14 and the grant of authority show only Ka frequencies, not BSS frequencies from 17.3 to 17.7. I assume they'll have to ask separately for authorization to use the RDBS payload? Presumably at some future time when they're ready for it - i.e. when there is a LNB available that can receive RDBS from 99. This may mean that RDBS will not become operational until sometime well after D14 is launched, unless such an application would be a mere formality that is approved within a short period of time. How much lead time would they need for an application to add RDBS service to D14?

Am I interpreting this correctly?

Application: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=952449
Grant: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=977457


----------



## HoTat2

The RDBS payload "RB-1" destined to be carried aboard D14 was filed separately under the satellite station authorization call letters "S2711" originally in '08 years earlier (and modified somewhat since then) as indicated by the links on page one of this thread.

The filing for the Ka band portion "S2869" and formally named as "DIRECTV 14" followed years later.

See my post #464 of this thread for note of DIRECTV's first confirmation that D14 and RB-1 will actually be part of the same physical satellite and their explanation why the request for the Ka band authorization for it came so much later.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> I don't understand why you'd even question this, as it is so damned obvious between the patent providing one way and simple common sense providing others.


Having something patented doesn't assure that it is economically and technically feasible to manufacture and use it.

Having a license gives them the right to use it if they figure out how to make it work but I'm not sure how they plan to receive the signal is a criteria of getting the license.

Yes, I think that DIRECTV has squatted on licenses that it hasn't effectively used for long periods of time at one time or another. In a few cases they've even gone to the trouble of implementing them in space.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> ...Having a license gives them the right to use it if they figure out how to make it work but I'm not sure how they plan to *receive the signal is a criteria of getting the license*...


FCC rules require that a licensee broadcast on the frequencies, and from the location, specified in the license. It does NOT require that anyone receive it. All DirecTV needs to do is light up one transponder in the RDBS frequency to meet the "begin service" milestone.


----------



## JosephB

harsh said:


> Having something patented doesn't assure that it is economically and technically feasible to manufacture and use it.
> 
> Having a license gives them the right to use it if they figure out how to make it work but I'm not sure how they plan to receive the signal is a criteria of getting the license.
> 
> Yes, I think that DIRECTV has squatted on licenses that it hasn't effectively used for long periods of time at one time or another. In a few cases they've even gone to the trouble of implementing them in space.


They do have to have a plan on how to use them, though, to receive and keep the licenses. They can't just build up a bunch of smoke and mirrors and the FCC fall for it.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Having something patented doesn't assure that it is economically and technically feasible to manufacture and use it.
> 
> *Having a license gives them the right to use it if they figure out how to make it work but I'm not sure how they plan to receive the signal is a criteria of getting the license.
> 
> Yes, I think that DIRECTV has squatted on licenses that it hasn't effectively used for long periods of time at one time or another. In a few cases they've even gone to the trouble of implementing them in space.*


And what exactly makes this "spectrum squatting?"

DIRECTV applied for and was granted a modification to it's Ka band license at 101 back in '04 for back-hauling of local channels to and between their broadcast centers.

*See FCC File for DIRECTV 8, SAT-MOD-20040630-00128 (rel. Nov. 4, 2004).

The FCC granted this authorization to modify because because it helps facilitate the provision of LiL channels to subscribers, though indirectly.

I think a fairer question harsh would be to ask something to the effect of;

"What makes you feel DIRECTV has any real interest switching the use of their Ka band license at 101 from back-hauling purposes to supplying direct satellite feeds to subscribers?"

Or maybe;

"How do you know DIRECTV does not feel that with the successful deployments of D14 and 15, they will have more than sufficient Ka band capacity at 99 and 103 for direct subscriber feeds to make the addition of the Ka band at 101 for this unnecessary for the expense involved" or some other.

Not mere accusations of spectrum squatting since they have practical way to receive Ka from 101.


----------



## slice1900

I wasn't aware that Ka from 101 was being used for that purpose (or at all) I assumed they were going to use for broadcasting to customers, but maybe with the addition of Ka hi from 99 and RDBS from 99/103 they won't need it, unless 4K turns into a big deal.

Or who knows, maybe RDBS won't even be used for customer downlinks, and current LNBs will continue to be used for some time, unless/until they decide to add capacity for something today's LNB can't receive?

I say that because I noticed an interesting patent from Entropic that shows a LNB design clearly intended for Directv (Ka from 99 & 103, Ku from 101) that shows RDBS from 103 but not from 99. Patents don't mean that's what they're doing, but it was rather curious to see that as you'd think it the design would reflect the "current thinking" for plans even though obviously plans can and do change.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> I wasn't aware that Ka from 101 was being used for that purpose (or at all) I assumed they were going to use for broadcasting to customers, but maybe with the addition of Ka hi from 99 and RDBS from 99/103 they won't need it, unless 4K turns into a big deal.
> 
> Or who knows, maybe RDBS won't even be used for customer downlinks, and current LNBs will continue to be used for some time, unless/until they decide to add capacity for something today's LNB can't receive?
> 
> I say that because I noticed an interesting patent from Entropic that shows a LNB design clearly intended for Directv (Ka from 99 & 103, Ku from 101) that shows RDBS from 103 but not from 99. Patents don't mean that's what they're doing, but it was rather curious to see that as you'd think it the design would reflect the "current thinking" for plans even though obviously plans can and do change.


Yeah, for some years now:

A Ka band payload for back-hauling aboard DIRECTV 8 ("S2132") comprised of four 250 MHz wide transponders shared among four spot-beamed uplink sites called "local channel aggregation points" at Seattle, WA., Castle Rock, CO,, Atlanta, GA. and New York, NY. (each site may use 1 or 2 transponders). These are translated over to one and/or two downlink spotbeams to the L.A. Broadcast Center and/or a broadcast center?, in Kansas City, MO. (Not really sure what facility is located there).

And a Ka band payload for back-haul on DIRECTV 9S ("S2689") of two 500 MHz wide transponders from two uplink spotbeams aimed at the LA Broadcast Center and a local channel aggregation point in Boise, ID. over to two downlink spotbeams to the Midwest Uplink Facility (MWUF) in Oakdale, Minn. and the Southwest Uplink Facility near Tucson, AZ. (SWUF)

See the attached FCC LOA applications for more technical details.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> ... I say that because I noticed an interesting patent from Entropic that shows a LNB design clearly intended for Directv (Ka from 99 & 103, Ku from 101) that shows RDBS from 103 but not from 99. Patents don't mean that's what they're doing, but it was rather curious to see that as you'd think it the design would reflect the "current thinking" for plans even though obviously plans can and do change.


You have a link to that patent?

Or did you post it previously and I must have missed it?


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> You have a link to that patent?
> 
> Or did you post it previously and I must have missed it?


http://www.google.com/patents/US20130278304

Figure 3 is the interesting one. The patent (application - it hasn't been granted) itself describes a way to use frequency divisors to share a single LO, outputting each 500 MHz band separately to feed into a A/D converter. Sort of a "digital LNB", or more likely the front end to a DSWM LNB. The prior art in Figure 2 doesn't describe the KaKu LNB (since it stacks from 250 - 2150 MHz) though it may represent the front end of the SWM LNB since there is no point to stacking its inputs only to have it immediately unstack them.

Given that Directv's KaKu patent describes a way to share two LOs, you'd think that DROs were expensive or something when you see these patents trying to minimize their use, but they cost almost nothing. I guess there must be some other benefit to splitting the "signal" from a single DRO rather than having a bunch of them.

Best theory I can come up with there is that they may be a noise source, which is obviously a bad thing in a LNB, so you want to minimize their use? Maybe VOS knows?


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> All DirecTV needs to do is light up one transponder in the RDBS frequency to meet the "begin service" milestone.


I'm pretty sure FCC rules demand that the licenses must be used "in the public interest". Showering us with microwaves for no particular reason is not allowed.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> Not mere accusations of spectrum squatting since they have practical way to receive Ka from 101.


My spectrum squatting accusations were related to the apparent disuse of the transponders at 110W up until this Summer when they were finally put into service for DIRECTVPR.

My 101W question is about whether or not using 101W for Ka downlink to residential customers with an OTARD compliant dish is feasible. Insisting that DIRECTV and/or the FCC aren't stupid or wouldn't waste money doesn't answer the question of the physics.

My assumption is that all of the excitement about new satellites and frequencies is based on expanding the both the quality and number of channels that residential customers can receive as opposed to how DIRECTV can increase their internal or leased bandwidth.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> My spectrum squatting accusations were related to the apparent disuse of the transponders at 110W up until this Summer when they were finally put into service for DIRECTVPR.
> 
> My 101W question is about whether or not using 101W for Ka downlink to residential customers with an OTARD compliant dish is feasible. Insisting that DIRECTV and/or the FCC aren't stupid or wouldn't waste money doesn't answer the question of the physics.
> 
> My assumption is that all of the excitement about new satellites and frequencies is based on expanding the both the quality and number of channels that residential customers can receive as opposed to how DIRECTV can increase their internal or leased bandwidth.


Maybe....maybe not.

Then again...only a DirecTV customer would care anyway.

How's Dish these days in comparison on this topic? Never mind...don't really care.


----------



## inkahauts

Wow. So he thinks DIRECTV is squatting because they have three entire transponders that where not used for a while after they canceled a new sat for 110 due to some leagl wrangling over the ownership of additional 110 bandwidth.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> My spectrum squatting accusations were related to the apparent disuse of the transponders at 110W up until this Summer when they were finally put into service for DIRECTVPR.
> 
> 
> 
> As inkahauts points out;
> 
> Just because there was a temporary delay involved in re-purposing D5 at 110 over to service in the PR qualifies as squatting?
> 
> ... My 101W question is about whether or not using 101W for Ka downlink to residential customers with an OTARD compliant dish is feasible. Insisting that DIRECTV and/or the FCC aren't stupid or wouldn't waste money doesn't answer the question of the physics.
Click to expand...

Perhaps;

But as stated it's probably irrelevant since DIRECTV may never have any intention of providing Ka service from 101 to subscribers and are satisfied with keeping it reserved for back-hauling duties as at present. 



> ... My assumption is that all of the excitement about new satellites and frequencies is based on expanding the both the quality and number of channels that residential customers can receive as opposed to how DIRECTV can increase their internal or leased bandwidth.


But use of the Ka spectrum at 101 for back-hauling does effectively increase the number of LiL channels that can be offered to subscribers, though indirectly as was pointed out in the FCC LOA filings for the Ka band payloads aboard D8 and 9S.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> I'm pretty sure FCC rules demand that the licenses must be used "in the public interest". Showering us with microwaves for no particular reason is not allowed.


"Pretty sure?" Perhaps a review of the service milestones and thresholds required by the license DirecTV is operating under would clear up your misunderstanding. Consider that homework. 

As for the "showering us with microwaves" ... may I suggest a tin foil hat?

Seriously - DirecTV has not violated their license. If you have anything more that wild accusations please post. Otherwise it would be nice to get back to reality and discuss DirecTV 14. Thanks!


----------



## studechip

Is there anything preventing 4k signals from being broadcast on the current fleet of satellites?
My understanding is that 4k is just another modulation scheme like mpeg2/4. Is that true?


----------



## inkahauts

Just bandwidth space being available.


----------



## slice1900

MPEG2 & MPEG4 are compression schemes, not modulation schemes. 4K is a resolution, not a compression or modulation scheme.

They could broadcast 4K from any of their current satellites, and use either MPEG2 or MPEG4 compression (though doing so with MPEG2 would be pretty stupid) Eventually they'll want to broadcast 4K using HEVC, which is a more advanced compression scheme than MPEG4. However, 4K might start out using MPEG4, just like HD started out using MPEG2.

They may already be broadcasting 4K, testing new receivers that aren't available yet. If the channel doesn't show up in the guide except on those test receivers, no one else would know it is there...

Who knows, maybe that's what 110 is doing right now


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> MPEG2 & MPEG4 are compression schemes, not modulation schemes. 4K is a resolution, not a compression or modulation scheme.
> 
> They could broadcast 4K from any of their current satellites, and use either MPEG2 or MPEG4 compression (though doing so with MPEG2 would be pretty stupid) Eventually they'll want to broadcast 4K using HEVC, which is a more advanced compression scheme than MPEG4. However, 4K might start out using MPEG4, just like HD started out using MPEG2.
> 
> *They may already be broadcasting 4K, testing new receivers that aren't available yet. If the channel doesn't show up in the guide except on those test receivers, no one else would know it is there...*
> 
> Who knows, maybe that's what 110 is doing right now


really ? not a chance to hide it now  ... ask Gary Toma at his dedicated thread


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> really ? not a chance to hide it now  ... ask Gary Toma at his dedicated thread


Is the method he uses able to see private channels? The first tab on the spreadsheet shows the name for all CONUS channels, but none of them appear to be the sort of private corporate channels I was under the impression that Directv carried for some customers. Even if he caught such channels in the channel count on the last tab, and a channel thus couldn't "hide" on 110, it certainly could be elsewhere on 99/101/103/119. The only way you could possibly detect the presence of such a 4K test channel would be if you could see the bitrate for all channels, including private channels.

They could also put test 4K test channels somewhere else, like in the 500 MHz 101 Ka transponders being used for downlinks. Just because you and I don't have LNBs that can receive from that satellite, doesn't mean people doing testing don't...

Maybe it is a bit too early for 4K testing from the satellites just yet, but they'll have to do it at some point, and I doubt we'll see a "HBO4K" appear in the guide when that happens


----------



## studechip

slice1900 said:


> MPEG2 & MPEG4 are compression schemes, not modulation schemes. 4K is a resolution, not a compression or modulation scheme.
> 
> They could broadcast 4K from any of their current satellites, and use either MPEG2 or MPEG4 compression (though doing so with MPEG2 would be pretty stupid) Eventually they'll want to broadcast 4K using HEVC, which is a more advanced compression scheme than MPEG4. However, 4K might start out using MPEG4, just like HD started out using MPEG2.
> 
> They may already be broadcasting 4K, testing new receivers that aren't available yet. If the channel doesn't show up in the guide except on those test receivers, no one else would know it is there...
> 
> Who knows, maybe that's what 110 is doing right now


Got it, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Curtis0620

Are we still looking at a February 2014 launch?


----------



## inkahauts

We seem to be


----------



## cypherx

Wow that's really just around the corner. These past few months have gone by quick for me. Looking forward to D14 and the bandwidth it will bring. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## harsh

Curtis0620 said:


> Are we still looking at a February 2014 launch?


According to Salo's post of November 14th on the site that seems to be abreast of such things, the DIRECTV 14 launch date has rolled into Q2 2014.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Seriously - DirecTV has not violated their license. If you have anything more that wild accusations please post. Otherwise it would be nice to get back to reality and discuss DirecTV 14. Thanks!


When the apparent "dead air" can be measured in double-digit months, is that in keeping with the public interest?


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> When the apparent "dead air" can be measured in double-digit months, *is that in keeping with the public interest?*


Apparently this "dead air" for *direct* subscriber feeds anyhow, is still in keeping with the spirit of DIRECTV's public license for Ka band use at 101, otherwise the FCC would not have granted them permission for the Ka band payloads on D8 and D9S for back-hauling of LiL feeds as has already been explained.

Now you may still consider this usage of the license there as "dead air," but that doesn't mean the FCC has to consider it as such.


----------



## JosephB

slice1900 said:


> MPEG2 & MPEG4 are compression schemes, not modulation schemes. 4K is a resolution, not a compression or modulation scheme.
> 
> They could broadcast 4K from any of their current satellites, and use either MPEG2 or MPEG4 compression (though doing so with MPEG2 would be pretty stupid) Eventually they'll want to broadcast 4K using HEVC, which is a more advanced compression scheme than MPEG4. However, 4K might start out using MPEG4, just like HD started out using MPEG2.
> 
> They may already be broadcasting 4K, testing new receivers that aren't available yet. If the channel doesn't show up in the guide except on those test receivers, no one else would know it is there...
> 
> Who knows, maybe that's what 110 is doing right now


What's the bandwidth of a Ku transponder on 101? I'm curious as to whether or not they actually could carry a 4K channel in MPEG-2 on a Ku transponder without it looking like a RealPlayer video


----------



## P Smith

27 MHz


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> When the apparent "dead air" can be measured in double-digit months, is that in keeping with the public interest?


That isn't the standard. You didn't do your homework. 
DirecTV has not violated the terms of their license.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> 27 MHz


Actually 24 MHz; 

The transponders used on G3C at 95W for the World Direct service are 27 MHz though.


----------



## slice1900

JosephB said:


> What's the bandwidth of a Ku transponder on 101? I'm curious as to whether or not they actually could carry a 4K channel in MPEG-2 on a Ku transponder without it looking like a RealPlayer video


A Ku transponder certainly could carry 4K, but why would it do so in MPEG2? A transponder can carry any type of compression, but since there is absolutely no chance whatsoever any provider will ever deliver 4K using MPEG2 compression, the question is moot. Preferably they'd use HEVC, but if decoders for that aren't ready yet (or are too expensive or run too hot) Directv might initially deliver 4K using MPEG4, similar to how they initially delivered HD using MPEG2.

One thing I'm unsure of is whether there is any correlation between transponder type and modulation scheme used. I know there's no technical restriction per se, but I'm not sure if you can "upgrade" a satellite to use a newer modulation after it has been launched. So older satellites used for Ku like D4, D8 and D9S may not be able to use newer more efficient modulation schemes that D12 or D14/D15, when launched, might be able to use.

Does anyone have a list of different modulations Directv uses and what satellite(s) use them? Or do they use the same modulation everywhere? Could a satellite be software upgraded to use a modulation that didn't exist at the time it was launched?


----------



## longrider

I could be wrong but I thought the transponder did not care what the modulation scheme was, it just sent back down what it received. The frequency is the only thing fixed for a given transponder


----------



## slice1900

I thought all modern satellites used regenerative transponders. Anyone know?


----------



## harsh

IIRC, the operative phrase is "bent pipe".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_%28satellite_communications%29


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> That isn't the standard. You didn't do your homework.


So this means that the passage of time isn't important or it doesn't specify that there must be a public signal.


> DirecTV has not violated the terms of their license.


You've said that several times without offering supporting information.


----------



## cypherx

What modulation is uplinked is what is down linked. The only careful consideration is higher order modulation schemes may present earlier rain fade on Ka band. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> ... One thing I'm unsure of is whether there is any correlation between transponder type and modulation scheme used. I know there's no technical restriction per se, but I'm not sure if you can "upgrade" a satellite to use a newer modulation after it has been launched. So older satellites used for Ku like D4, D8 and D9S may not be able to use newer more efficient modulation schemes that D12 or D14/D15, when launched, might be able to use.
> 
> Does anyone have a list of different modulations Directv uses and what satellite(s) use them? Or do they use the same modulation everywhere? Could a satellite be software upgraded to use a modulation that didn't exist at the time it was launched?


AFAIK, DIRECTV ( and DISH as well) only use 4 or 8-PSK modulation.

While their proprietary DSS format for their MPEG-2/SD channels may allow for it, and the DVB-S2 format used by their MPEG-4/HD (and some SD) channels certainly allow for it. Neither DIRECTV (or DISH) ever use a modulation type greater than 8-PSK which has a constant amplitude with no modulation in the amplitude domain, but only in phase.

Therefore all their satellite feeds fully saturate the satellite transponders for maximum signal power output and smaller minimum acceptable C/N ratio for reception than modulation formats which vary in both amplitude and phase.

They use 4-PSK for all channels carried on CONUS beam transponders on both Ku and Ka bands, except for the Spanish HD channels on 119 Ku tp. 24 which use 8-PSK to allow for more data throughput on the smaller (compared to the 36 MHz Ka ones) 24 MHz transponder there.

And 4-PSK for all SD local channels on spotbeams

They use 4 or 8-PSK for local channels on the Ka band spotbeams.

It is thought that 8-PSK is possible on the Ka band spots because their higher PFD offsets the loss in signal robustness by going to a higher modulation level especially on Ka band. However this does not explain then why DIRECTV does not use 8-PSK consistently on all Ka spotbeams.


----------



## RAD

HoTat2 said:


> AFAIK, DIRECTV ( and DISH as well) only use 4 or 8-PSK modulation.


Doesn't Dish using something called 8PSK Turbo to squeeze a bit more bandwidth on the MPEG4 service? http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=473736


----------



## HoTat2

RAD said:


> Doesn't Dish using something called 8PSK Turbo to squeeze a bit more bandwidth on the MPEG4 service? http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=473736


I know they use an "FEC Turbo" for the Viterbi convolution coding on their DVB-S/MPEG-2 SD feeds (which are only on the WA).

But I'm not aware of a Turbo variety for the FEC used on their 8-PSK feeds since those are sent in the DVB-S2 format which use a type of "Low Density Parity Check" (LDPC) inner coding and a "Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem" (BCH) outer coding for FEC.


----------



## cypherx

I thought Dish could put more HD per tp (like 8 to 10) due to a few different things.
-8QPSK with TURBO FEC
-Ku band allows higher order modulation and lower FEC = better throughput for data
-Higher compression (1440x1080i in some cases). Fine for the "talking heads", Shopping, Government and Religious networks. But there have been complaints when used on more popular networks.

To compare at most DirectTV put 6 HD and 1 MPEG4 SD on a single Ka transponder. I've seen as many as 10 HD or 24 SD on a Dish Network transponder. 





Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## P Smith

NIT posted, so all the parameters well known for all DTV/dish sats/tpns - see Gary Toma's and James Long's threads


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> NIT posted, so all the parameters well known for all DTV/dish sats/tpns - see Gary Toma's and James Long's threads


As a quick comment:
DISH uses symbol rate 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK for most of the transponders used for HD. They also have HD on 21500 3/4 FEC 8PSK transponders and 22500 5/6 FEC "TURBO" transponders ("TURBO" is only on the satellite at 77).
(Data rate of 39.628Mbps to 44.581Mbps on 8PSK and 34.559Mbps on "TURBO" if the math is correct.)

Most transponders used for SD only (primarily western arc) are symbol rate 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK ... but there are spotbeams using 5/6 FEC or 1/2 FEC (symbol rate 20000 QPSK).
(Data rate of 32.255Mbps or less if the math is correct.)



cypherx said:


> To compare at most DirectTV put 6 HD and 1 MPEG4 SD on a single Ka transponder. I've seen as many as 10 HD or 24 SD on a Dish Network transponder.


The 10 HD transponder (one per arc) is 10 PPV channels ... I don't believe anyone has complained. "8" for the RSNs (remembering there is a 9th low bandwidth slate channel hidden on those transponders) and 9 for other channels is most common on DISH.

I have not audited SD but I'd be surprised to see 24 unique feeds on a QPSK transponder ... the last time I checked 13 was max. On 8PSK there could easily be more than 24 unique SD feeds. (Feeds mirrored on multiple channels make counting more interesting - requiring an audit to figure out which channel numbers are sharing the same feed.)


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> AFAIK, DIRECTV ( and DISH as well) only use 4 or 8-PSK modulation.


I suspect what you refer to as 4PSK modulation is more commonly known as QPSK: Quadrature Phase Shift Keying.

Gotta keep the jargon consistent.


----------



## JosephB

harsh said:


> it turns into about the same amount of pixel data as DIRECTV presents on six or so SD channels.


That sounds significant, but given the way modern video codecs work, it's probably not that big of a difference on bitrate.


----------



## cypherx

Well it's even awhile since I looked but I did see 20-22 SD on one dish tp before. The difference was its mpeg4. DirecTV's SD on 101 is so utterly bit starved at mpeg2, that's why I'd be glad even for crap channels to make the move to HD if there's room, just to make it easier on the eyes.

For dish, I'm in an Eastern Arc market. My tree line blocks some of eastern arc so I went with DirecTV, and I'm happy with them now. I just wish their SD wasn't so bit starved. My cable provider also uses MPEG2 for SD (and everything really), but sometimes I can't tell their SD is less than 720p. They only put 10 feeds in one 38.8mbps QAM channel.


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> DCI 4K (4096x2160) projectors are used in many movie theaters. How is this to be reconciled?
> 
> As it is, there's so little Ultra HD content as to suggest that nothing has been decided in terms of what it will ultimately end up being.


What do movie theaters have to do with televisions?


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> DCI 4K (4096x2160) projectors are used in many movie theaters. How is this to be reconciled?
> 
> As it is, there's so little Ultra HD content as to suggest that nothing has been decided in terms of what it will ultimately end up being.


Digital projection equipment already crops at the top or sides as needed, because films are produced in multiple aspect ratios, they'll do it the same way for broadcast.


----------



## harsh

studechip said:


> What do movie theaters have to do with televisions?


Because movie theaters offer 4K content now, they establish what it means to be 4K.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> I suspect what you refer to as 4PSK modulation is more commonly known as QPSK: Quadrature Phase Shift Keying.
> 
> Gotta keep the jargon consistent.


Yep;

"QPSK" is what I meant by "4-PSK;"

Sorry for any confusion ...


----------



## HoTat2

James Long said:


> As a quick comment:
> DISH uses symbol rate 21500 2/3 FEC 8PSK for most of the transponders used for HD. They also have HD on 21500 3/4 FEC 8PSK transponders and 22500 5/6 FEC "TURBO" transponders ("TURBO" is only on the satellite at 77).
> (Data rate of 39628 to 44581 on 8PSK and 34559 on "TURBO" if the math is correct.)
> 
> Most transponders used for SD only (primarily western arc) are symbol rate 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK ... but there are spotbeams using 5/6 FEC or 1/2 FEC (symbol rate 20000 QPSK).
> (Data rate of 32255 or less if the math is correct.)
> 
> The 10 HD transponder (one per arc) is 10 PPV channels ... I don't believe anyone has complained. "8" for the RSNs (remembering there is a 9th low bandwidth slate channel hidden on those transponders) and 9 for other channels is most common on DISH.
> 
> I have not audited SD but I'd be surprised to see 24 unique feeds on a QPSK transponder ... the last time I checked 13 was max. On 8PSK there could easily be more than 24 unique SD feeds. (Feeds mirrored on multiple channels make counting more interesting - requiring an audit to figure out which channel numbers are sharing the same feed.)


So then DISH actually does not use DVB-S2 for their MPEG-4 HD and SD feeds?

Only the first generation DVB-S or DVB-S with FEC Turbo (on the QuetzSat 1 satellite at 77W)?


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> Because movie theaters offer 4K content now, they establish what it means to be 4K.


Do movie theaters claim hd content now? Why do you think they will claim 4k in the future? Meaningless.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Does anyone know what FEC Directv uses on its 4PSK and 8PSK? Maybe more FEC is used for Ka band? If we know the specs, we can plug the numbers into a calculator and figure out the available bit rate.


For DIRECTV USA the numbers appear to be about 20 MegaSymbols/s (or 20 Megabaud) at a code rate of 6/7 for SD Ku channels which all use QPSK modulation. And 30 MS/s (30MB) at a code rate of 2/3 or 3/4 for the MPEG-4 HD and SD channels on Ka band which use QPSK or 8-PSK modulation (used on some spotbeams).

Note: The Spanish HD feeds on 119 Ku tp. 24 use 20 MS/s with 8-PSK modulation to compensate for the lower SR limitation of the smaller 24 MHz bandwidth transponder.


----------



## James Long

HoTat2 said:


> So then DISH actually does not use DVB-S2 for their MPEG-4 HD and SD feeds?
> 
> Only the first generation DVB-S or DVB-S with FEC Turbo (on the QuetzSat 1 satellite at 77W)?


If I read the data correctly, yes on both counts. The bit that normally denotes DVB-S2 is not set in the captured NIT.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

I've moved a bunch of posts to the 4k discussion. 

:backtotop:

Mike


----------



## Ed Campbell

We seem to be


Cripes. Time for me to show up here to keep up to date, every day.

Too many interesting topics online. 


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> So then DISH actually does not use DVB-S2 for their MPEG-4 HD and SD feeds?
> 
> Only the first generation DVB-S or DVB-S with FEC Turbo (on the QuetzSat 1 satellite at 77W)?


checking transponders by some advanced DVB-S2 cards (TBS 6920/5920) and found no DVB-S2 using there


----------



## HoTat2

James Long said:


> If I read the data correctly, yes on both counts. The bit that normally denotes DVB-S2 is not set in the captured NIT.





P Smith said:


> checking transponders by some advanced DVB-S2 cards (TBS 6920/5920) and found no DVB-S2 using there


I see, but it's somewhat confusing though;

When the original DVB-S standard was created in 1994, it was only to be used with MPEG-2 and a modulation level no greater than QPSK for DTH satellite services. Professional applications like DSNG could use MPEG-2 with 8-PSK or QAM-16.

I can't find any official documentation from the ETSI of a modification of the DVB-S standard for MPEG-4 with 8-PSK for professional much less DTH services like DISH is apparently using.


----------



## Diana C

HoTat2 said:


> I see, but it's somewhat confusing though;
> 
> When the original DVB-S standard was created in 1994, it was only to be used with MPEG-2 and a modulation level no greater than QPSK for DTH satellite services. Professional applications like DSNG could use MPEG-2 with 8-PSK or QAM-16.
> 
> I can't find any official documentation from the ETSI of a modification of the DVB-S standard for MPEG-4 with 8-PSK for professional much less DTH services like DISH is apparently using.


Which just means that they are doing something non-standard. Since they only need to worry about reception by their own hardware, that's not a problem.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> Which just means that they are doing something non-standard. Since they only need to worry about reception by their own hardware, that's not a problem.


Exactly. There is no reason, aside from cost, why either Directv or Dish can't extend or even invent their own modulation scheme, compression scheme, etc. if they wanted. They don't need to be compatible with the hardware designed for the FTA market - in fact, they might prefer be a little bit incompatible, to raise the bar just a bit higher for anyone trying to receive their broadcasts without paying.


----------



## cypherx

So will D14 have similar bandwidth per tp? Or are they looking to do something more advanced? 6 HD's in 30mbps its pretty impressive. Cable is doing only 3 HDs in 38.8 Mbps. Even if they moved to MPEG4, at twice efficiency 6 HD's is still in 38.8 Mbps as opposed to 30-32 Mbps. DirecTV has some pretty good encoders!

Just thinking out loud, since D14 is so new, was it built with better spectral efficiency in mind so maybe a transponder can carry 40, 50 or maybe even 60 Mbps?


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## James Long

cypherx said:


> So will D14 have similar bandwidth per tp? Or are they looking to do something more advanced? 6 HD's in 30mbps its pretty impressive.


With a 30m symbol rate, 8PSK and 2/3 or 3/4 FEC you're looking at 55-62mbps per transponder.


----------



## studechip

cypherx said:


> So will D14 have similar bandwidth per tp? Or are they looking to do something more advanced? *6 HD's in 30mbps its pretty impressive*. Cable is doing only 3 HDs in 38.8 Mbps. Even if they moved to MPEG4, at twice efficiency 6 HD's is still in 38.8 Mbps as opposed to 30-32 Mbps. DirecTV has some pretty good encoders!
> 
> Just thinking out loud, since D14 is so new, was it built with better spectral efficiency in mind so maybe a transponder can carry 40, 50 or maybe even 60 Mbps?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Some transponders carry as many as seven hd channels.


----------



## HoTat2

cypherx said:


> So will D14 have similar bandwidth per tp? Or are they looking to do something more advanced? 6 HD's in 30mbps its pretty impressive. Cable is doing only 3 HDs in 38.8 Mbps. Even if they moved to MPEG4, at twice efficiency 6 HD's is still in 38.8 Mbps as opposed to 30-32 Mbps. DirecTV has some pretty good encoders!
> 
> Just thinking out loud, since D14 is so new, was it built with better spectral efficiency in mind so maybe a transponder can carry 40, 50 or maybe even 60 Mbps?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Nah....

Standard 36 MHz wide transponders (twenty-four of them, 12 LHCP/12 RHCP) as the other "D-" birds, to relay the typical transport SR or 30 megabaud for a data throughput of around 37-39 mb/s each.

The satellite's CONUS Ka band payload will be the same as D-12's with 16 (numbered 9 - 24) transponders on the Ka-hi (19.7 - 20.2 GHz) portion.

However, unlike all the other "D-" birds its spotbeams use the Ka-hi band as well and since the transponders are 36 MHz it's spotbeams can use all 8 transponder channels (# 1 - 8) this time. Thus more efficient than the current Spaceway's wasteful 62.5 MHz bandwidth per tp. which limited use of never more than six of the assigned SB channels there leaving channels 7 and 8 always unused due to overlap into their spectrum.


----------



## HoTat2

Diana C said:


> Which just means that they are doing something non-standard. Since they only need to worry about reception by their own hardware, that's not a problem.





slice1900 said:


> Exactly. There is no reason, aside from cost, why either Directv or Dish can't extend or even invent their own modulation scheme, compression scheme, etc. if they wanted. They don't need to be compatible with the hardware designed for the FTA market - in fact, they might prefer be a little bit incompatible, to raise the bar just a bit higher for anyone trying to receive their broadcasts without paying.


Yeah ...

The irony though is that when I read through the introduction to DVB-S2 in the official standard, it lists a number of major reasons why the prior DVB-S is insufficient for MPEG-4 HD with 8-PSK modulation, especially for consumer DTH broadcasting. Yet, these reasons notwithstanding, this is the format DISH still chooses to use and it appears to have no problems, lol.

Still I would have expected DISH to use maybe a proprietary flavor of DVB-S2 for those feeds similar to what DIRECTV does with their "DVB-S2D" version.

Where the trailing "D" indicates "DIRECTV" I assume.


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> Nah....
> 
> Standard 36 MHz wide transponders (twenty-four of them, 12 LHCP/12 RHCP) as the other "D-" birds, to relay the typical transport SR or 30 megabaud for a data throughput *of around 37-39 mb/s* each.
> 
> The satellite's CONUS Ka band payload will be the same as D-12's with 16 (numbered 9 - 24) transponders on the Ka-hi (19.7 - 20.2 GHz) portion.
> 
> However, unlike all the other "D-" birds its spotbeams use the Ka band as well and since the transponders are 36 MHz it's spotbeams can use all 8 transponder channels (# 1 - 8) this time. Thus more efficient than the current Spaceway's *wasteful 62.5 MHz bandwidth per tp*. which limited use of never more than six of the assigned SB channels there leaving channels 7 and 8 always unused due to overlap into their spectrum.


- there are more - see my old post with measured values for each mod/FEC combination
- not again, the 62.5 MHz is one of many _possible_ values for SW tpn, I did post real measured values: 36 MHz


----------



## Diana C

The Spaceway satellites were never designed for DTH video transmission...they were designed to provide satellite based internet. As a result, they have variable shaped beams and variable bandwidth transponders. The idea was to be able to put more bandwidth where it was needed, as needed. DirecTV has mostly been using them in a relatively stable and fixed configuration, with some beams set as spots and others as CONUS beams. The extreme flexibility is great, but it comes at a price: they need to pump more power into the variable shape beams than you would into a "traditional" fixed beam to get the same EIRP on the ground.

The Spaceway satellites let DirecTV get HD going quickly, but I expect that they will be the first birds retired from the HD constellation.


----------



## Diana C

HoTat2 said:


> ...Where the trailing "D" indicates "DIRECTV" I assume.


Actually, "DBS", but that is a distinction without a difference. Way back at the beginning of the DirecTV they made some alterations to DVB and called it DBS. They have been using that variation ever since.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah ...
> 
> The irony though is that when I read through the introduction to DVB-S2 in the official standard, it lists a number of major reasons why the prior DVB-S is insufficient for MPEG-4 HD with 8-PSK modulation, especially for consumer DTH broadcasting. Yet, these reasons notwithstanding, this is the format DISH still chooses to use and it appears to have no problems, lol.
> 
> Still I would have expected DISH to use maybe a proprietary flavor of DVB-S2 for those feeds similar to what DIRECTV does with their "DVB-S2D" version.
> 
> Where the trailing "D" indicates "DIRECTV" I assume.


Given how standards organizations typically work, there probably were some limitations in DVB-S that made it harder to do MPEG4/8PSK. So they created DVB-S2 to rectify that, but also added a whole kitchen sink of other stuff that various wanted. Dish may have taken DVB-S and simply addressed those limitations in their own proprietary extension, and not have to worry about the rest of the kitchen sink.


----------



## P Smith

actually, DTV create own (see patents) stream/mux type before DVB - DSS http://www.tsreader.com/legacy/

Current type named as "*DSS-3*"


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> The Spaceway satellites were never designed for DTH video transmission...they were designed to provide satellite based internet. As a result, they have variable shaped beams and variable bandwidth transponders. The idea was to be able to put more bandwidth where it was needed, as needed. DirecTV has mostly been using them in a relatively stable and fixed configuration, with some beams set as spots and others as CONUS beams. The extreme flexibility is great, but it comes at a price: they need to pump more power into the variable shape beams than you would into a "traditional" fixed beam to get the same EIRP on the ground.
> 
> The Spaceway satellites let DirecTV get HD going quickly, but I expect that they will be the first birds retired from the HD constellation.


I agree they'll be the first ones retired from HD, but only because they're the oldest. I don't see why needing more power to accomplish the same output should matter to them, it only means those sats are able to power fewer transponders for the same solar power budget. It is no different than if they were launched with regular transponders but a smaller solar array.

Is there any reason they would retire them before their supply of maneuvering fuel runs out or something critical breaks on them? If nothing else that 'extreme flexibility' would make them quite valuable as a backup, since they can take over for either spot beam or CONUS beam needs. If that flexibility were to extend even into the frequency range those configurable transponders can output, they'd be even more valuable as a backup as they could be at least a partial replacement for any satellite in Directv's fleet.


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> Given how standards organizations typically work, there probably were some limitations in DVB-S that made it harder to do MPEG4/8PSK. So they created DVB-S2 to rectify that, but also added a whole kitchen sink of other stuff that various wanted. Dish may have taken DVB-S and simply addressed those limitations in their own proprietary extension, and not have to worry about the rest of the kitchen sink.


first ISO standard [DVB-S] does allow to use higher level of constellation [8PSK] and different video compression like H.264/AVC/VC-1
DVB-S2 is an evolution of DVB-S, it has much more new features than just MPEG-4 and 8PSK


----------



## RAD

I thought the idea of using a Spaceway for a CONUS transponder was decided against back when only SW1/SW2 were operational, that's why they had to wait for DIRECTV 10 before adding any national HD channels on something other then 110/119 slots.


----------



## LameLefty

slice1900 said:


> Is there any reason they would retire them before their supply of maneuvering fuel runs out or something critical breaks on them? If nothing else that 'extreme flexibility' would make them quite valuable as a backup, since they can take over for either spot beam or CONUS beam needs. If that flexibility were to extend even into the frequency range those configurable transponders can output, they'd be even more valuable as a backup as they could be at least a partial replacement for any satellite in Directv's fleet.


Operationally, that's exactly the right reason to "retire" them from generalized front-line type service ASAP. Newer satellites better-optimized for the role of DTH transmission can be flown, leaving the Spaceways as in-orbit spare capacity for unplanned contingencies.

Actually, and more generally regarding Directv's satellite constellation, I expect to begin seeing FCC filings soon(-ish) for replacements for some of the Ku birds. Directv 5 hits its end-of-design life in June 2014, although it probably has plenty of fuel left. Of course, design lifetime takes into account probabilistic risk assessment for likelihood of system failures other than maneuvering fuel: spacecraft processors, power distribution systems/batteries, heater failures, thruster failures, micrometeoroid strikes, etc. all have increased likelihood as more time passes.

Next on the list is D4S in December 2016 and then D8 in June 2017, and the rest on down the line. Since the satellite regulatory process, build process and launch scheduling all take non-trivial amounts of time, we ought to begin seeing FCC filings by next year, I would think.


----------



## inkahauts

Space ways are not used as conus and will not be they evidently had issue doing that well for sat tv. 

And they have repurposed them now anyways it seems. Last I recall one at least was providing a lot of stuff for pr, so they seem to be utilizing it for that rather than just lots of spots of lil. That maybe because of how versatile these satelites are being able to point a most their abilities to one area.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> - there are more - see my old post with measured values for each mod/FEC combination
> 
> Yeah
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I later felt my estimate of data though-put was a little on the conservative side.
> 
> Perhaps maybe 36-43 mb/s t-p is more correct depending on code rate and modulation level?
> 
> I might try and locate your old post on this later, but mainly wish to note for now that with a 36 MHz bandwidth you can't do much better than a 30 megabaud SR as that is mainly determined by the available bandwidth of the transponder.
> 
> - not again, the 62.5 MHz is one of many _possible_ values for SW tpn, I did post real measured values: 36 MHz
Click to expand...

But aren't you referring to the actual "occupied bandwidth" used by a transmission over the SW transponders which will show on a spectrum analyzer or some other, as opposed the "total bandwidth" of the transponder whether occupied or not which I'm referring to?

From the FCC filing data, when the SWs are operated in "non-processor" mode the up/downlink Ka-hi band is divided into 8 contiguous transponder-like sub-bands of 62.5 MHz each making for a total of 16 maximum (8 R/LHCP).

However DIRECTV can only use 6 of these slots (3 R/LHCP) without overlapping into the spectrum of Ka-hi CONUS transponder pair 9 and 10. But this means the transponder pair 7 and 8 are unusable.

This doesn't mean though that all the 62,5 MHz bandwidth allocated per transponder-like slot is necessarily used. 

If say the typical 36M0G7W transmission for HD programming is sent through and centered on a SW's 62.5 MHz virtual transponder, then 26.5 MHz (or 13.25 MHz to either side) is going to be unoccupied and wasted.

That empty spectrum won't show up in the downlink signal's spectra of course, but it is still there which is what I meant by "inefficiently" earlier.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> actually, DTV create own (see patents) stream/mux type before DVB - DSS http://www.tsreader.com/legacy/
> 
> Current type named as "*DSS-3*"


So then all the Ku band SD channels use this proprietary "DSS-3" format?


----------



## HoTat2

RAD said:


> I thought the idea of using a Spaceway for a CONUS transponder was decided against back when only SW1/SW2 were operational, that's why they had to wait for DIRECTV 10 before adding any national HD channels on something other then 110/119 slots.


It was AFAIK;

There is a CONUS wide beam antenna for the Ka B band, the so called "Potter-horn" retrofit, for two 165 MHz wide transponders for back-hauling.

But I don't see how these are really usable any longer once the "D-" birds were launched as it would obviously interfere with subscriber's Ka-B band reception.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> The Spaceway satellites were never designed for DTH video transmission...they were designed to provide satellite based internet. As a result, they have variable shaped beams and variable bandwidth transponders.


The Spaceway birds don't have beams at all. They have an array of antennae that can fabricate beams.

I'm betting the transponder bandwith is NOT variable.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> The Spaceway birds don't have beams at all. They have an array of antennae that can fabricate beams.
> 
> I'm betting the transponder bandwith is NOT variable.


From the FCC data it doesn't;

In non-processor or "bent pipe" mode the Spaceways form 62.5 MHz wide slots which imitate actual Ka-hi band transponders of that width which a digital transmission may use from some up to all of it.


----------



## Diana C

I was using "bandwidth" in the digital sense (the number of bits transmitted per second) rather than the RF sense (the number of cycles per channel). While the first is dependent on the second, other factors also influence digital bandwidth, such as amplitude of the signal, the encoding method used, etc.


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> I agree they'll be the first ones retired from HD, but only because they're the oldest. I don't see why needing more power to accomplish the same output should matter to them, it only means those sats are able to power fewer transponders for the same solar power budget. It is no different than if they were launched with regular transponders but a smaller solar array.
> 
> Is there any reason they would retire them before their supply of maneuvering fuel runs out or something critical breaks on them? If nothing else that 'extreme flexibility' would make them quite valuable as a backup, since they can take over for either spot beam or CONUS beam needs. If that flexibility were to extend even into the frequency range those configurable transponders can output, they'd be even more valuable as a backup as they could be at least a partial replacement for any satellite in Directv's fleet.


Power and fuel are the two most significant limiting factors in satellite operations. The amount fuel limits the ability to maneuver and ultimately the lifespan of the satellite. Power limits how many services can be supported. If two satellites are available, one with a set of fixed transmission characteristics that can carry 100 channels and one that has highly flexible transmission characteristics but carries only 90 channels, which one would use to fill a satellite slot (assuming they can both provide service to the desired footprint)?

I agree that they won't be de-orbited...they are very useful as spares. But I think DirecTV would like to have more efficient satellites in their place wherever and whenever possible.


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> So then all the Ku band SD channels use this proprietary "DSS-3" format?


Ku [MPG before, now APG kind] tpn's muxes organized by DSS mode; Ka [DVB-S2D/H.264/etc] tpns are names as DSS-3 mode. Plus, some [tp25 119W, a few tpns at 95W DLA] converted into DSS-3 mode what include DVB-S2D type.


----------



## Diana C

P Smith said:


> actually, DTV create own (see patents) stream/mux type before DVB - DSS http://www.tsreader.com/legacy/
> 
> Current type named as "*DSS-3*"


My error...yes, it is DSS. But I was under the impression that DSS and DVB we're not that different, and that DirecTV was part of the original DVB standards committee, but went with their own implementation of DSS because the DVB standard wasn't ratified in time for their service launch date. I do recall that, during the Dish/DirecTV merger attempt, lots of people have said that the two systems could be made compatible quite easily and that DSS and DVB are very similar.


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> From the FCC data it doesn't;
> 
> In non-processor or "bent pipe" mode the Spaceways form *62.5 MHz wide slots* which imitate actual Ka-hi band transponders of that width which a digital transmission may use from some up to all of it.


would be a spectrogram of Ka L/R tpns [500 MHz] enough to convince you ?


----------



## LameLefty

P Smith said:


> would be a spectrogram of Ka L/R tpns [500 MHz] enough to convince you ?


Reads HoTat2's entire post and THINK about it before snipping a small piece out of context.


----------



## P Smith

Diana C said:


> My error...yes, it is DSS. But I was under the impression that DSS and DVB we're not that different, and that DirecTV was part of the original DVB standards committee, but went with their own implementation of DSS because the DVB standard wasn't ratified in time for their service launch date. I do recall that, during the Dish/DirecTV merger attempt, lots of people have said that the two systems could be made compatible quite easily and *that DSS and DVB are very similar*.


well, known both streams inside out [not 100%, but good enough] I wouldn't say so
reading DTV patents about proprietary MPG [sort of revealing 'secret' DSS design) would show you the difference, if you will compare it to open standard DVB-S

BTW, conversion DSS stream [131 byte DSS packets to 188 bytes DVB bytes, MPG, V/A] to DVB has been done by one guy who wrote such plugin for TSReader


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> would be a spectrogram of Ka L/R tpns [500 MHz] enough to convince you ?


Convince me P.Smith?

it's not really about convincing me one way or the other.

As LL states, my post in context is quoting the data about the Spaceways' operation *as filed by DIRECTV in their LOA Narrative with the FCC*.

Now if you dispute the filing as incorrect, then please blame DIRECTV and I suppose Boeing Satellite Systems too who actually built the satellites, for the error and botching this technical information big time and not seemingly accuse me of being obstinate on the issue.

For instance, regarding SW1, the FCC Narrative illustrates and reads at one point among others on this;









Where in the following paragraph it states here and repeatedly in other places;



> _... Bands B3 and B4 are contiguous on both the uplink and the downlink. These bands are received by the satellite in the 29.5-30.0 GHz range and are translated down to the 19.7-20.2 GHz range for re-transmission to Earth. When the satellite is operated in full processor mode, the uplink and downlink transmissions are essentially separated by the on-board processor. In this mode, the uplink in each beam is FDMA/TDMA (see also Section 5.2.1 for frequency plan) and the downlink is either a hopping or broadcast TDM carrier (see also Section 5.2.2 for discussion). As such, when operated in this mode there are no "transponders," in the conventional sense of the word, on the satellite. *When the satellite is operated in non-processor mode it can be viewed as supporting eight contiguous 62.5 MHz channels. These channels can support virtually any mix of carrier types within the passband of a given 62.5 MHz channel. In this mode, single or multiple channels can be received by the satellite in a given uplink beam, channels can be re-used among uplink beams, and these uplink channels can be connected to any downlink channel and routed to virtually any downlink beam.*_


The same data in given the the LOA narrative for SW2 as well.

So what do you expect me to say to that then? ....

DIRECTV and BSS don't know what they are talking about? :shrug:


----------



## P Smith

I can't believe I'm only one here who have spectrum analyzers and do fall in awkward position when I'm going against official papers


----------



## slice1900

So "8 contiguous 62.5 MHz channels". Keyword, 'contiguous'. As in, no guard bands between channels in that 8 x 62.5 = 500 MHz range.

Sounds to me like it could output something that mimics what you'd get from a normal satellite using 36 MHz wide transponders separated by guard bands. In that respect, it sounds very much like what the FCC application states the 250 and 500 MHz wideband Ka transponders on D8 & D9S are capable of (though currently they're apparently only being used to output a single wideband signal to make maximum use of the bandwidth available to them)


----------



## LameLefty

P Smith said:


> I can't believe I'm only one here who have spectrum analyzers and do fall in awkward position when I'm going against official papers


Are you being intentionally difficult or do you really not comprehend what HoTat2 posted? It seems slice1900 gets it just fine.


----------



## HoTat2

Oh well ...

According to the correspondent keeping tabs on the latest Arianespace scheduling info. at the NasaSpaceFlight.com Forum, D14's launch has been now been bumped to sometime in 2014's second quarter.

From "Salo";



> _"NET second quarter - DirecTV 14 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3"_


Not really sure what "NET" means, but I assume it's synonymous to "sometime within."

Don't know if Arianespace is behind schedule or SS/L or both, but either way looks like a February launch is off. 

Guess I should have anticipated as much, as I really felt things were moving along a little too briskly and setback-free for D14's launch to take place in early '14 given the nature of this business.


----------



## HoTat2

OK "NET" apparently means;

"No Earlier Than."

So D14's launch has been bumped to " 'No earlier than' the second quarter of 2014." according to the Nasaspaceflight.com Forum's thread for the Arianespace launch schedule anyhow.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> According to the correspondent keeping tabs on the latest Arianespace scheduling info. at the NasaSpaceFlight.com Forum, D14's launch has been now been bumped to sometime in 2014's second quarter.


That's old news. See post 987.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> That's old news. See post 987.


You're right;

Should have kept better tabs on that site.

Sorry for the outdated info.,

And even more sorry I've been repeating that prospective February launch date in other threads recently.

As I said, got to remember to keep the frequent delay/rescheduling-ridden nature of this business in mind when posting definitive dates for launches.


----------



## HarleyD

If every Arianne launch was not pushed back then I have to suppose that this is coming from either DirecTV or SS/L.

However I'm not necessarily saying that there's a "problem". It could have been decided to hold off for any number of reasons. Anything from hardware to software to firmware to peopleware. 

Any word if D15 is being pushed out to 2015?


----------



## inkahauts

Heck someone could have paid DIRECTV to swap launch dates even. In sure that kind of thing happens sometimes.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Heck someone could have paid DIRECTV to swap launch dates even. In sure that kind of thing happens sometimes.


As the original DIRECTV 15 announcement said that DIRECTV 14 had been "accelerated" due to the impending failure of DIRECTV 10, I kinda doubt that they would have agreed to step aside unless they're supremely confident that DIRECTV 10's backup propulsion system isn't going to fail.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/astrium-picked-build-directv-15-telecom-satellite

As SS/L is usually quite good with their on-time deliveries (assuming there aren't a mountain of change orders), I suspect the delay must lie with either Ariane (engine sourcing?) or DIRECTV.

DIRECTV 15 seems to be unrelated to DIRECTV 10 or DIRECTV 14 so I can't imagine why they would change its schedule unless one of the 101W satellites gets crufty or the whole Ariane schedule is sliding.


----------



## HarleyD

Engine sourcing?

Now spaceflight is admittedly not my forte, but unless each launch vehicle uses a unique, custom engine I would expect a problem of that nature to be systemic and not confined to a single launch.

Not to mention the idea that they would be sourcing components for the launch vehicle four or five months prior to the estimated launch date is almost incomprehesible. With the manufacturer's lead times on high ticket niche market components like those in the aerospace industry this seems like the kind of thing that would have been accounted for in a manufacturing schedule and capacity planning two years ago when they committed to the launch. 

It's not as if they can order a crate motor from Summitt Racing and bolt it into the launch vehicle.


----------



## inkahauts

Yep 

And besides d10 isn't in imminent failure. It's a concern that it's runnin a backup instead of a main system. No one has said its about to die, they have said they want to be ready in case it did. Massive difference.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> DIRECTV 15 seems to be unrelated to DIRECTV 10 or DIRECTV 14 so I can't imagine why they would change its schedule unless one of the 101W satellites gets crufty or the whole Ariane schedule is sliding.


What do you mean D15 is unrelated to D14? They have the exact same transponder package, so the design of the two is pretty similar (though they do have different power capability)

They won't be using their transponders in exactly the same way, since D14 will provide Ka hi from 99, but that is already provided from 103 where D15 seems likely to be destined.

I don't know much about how satellite launches go, but since it would take some time to set up each individual rocket and launch it, I assume there's a sort of queue of launches. If (just as an example) D14 is in a launch that's #6 in line and D15 is #12 in line, whether a delay of D14 affects D15 depends on the source of D14's delay. If it is a matter only affecting D14, where it is moved from #6 to #7 in line for some reason, then D15 is unaffected. If it is a matter where everything gets pushed back a few weeks, perhaps due to some maintenance needs at the launch facility, the same delay that affects D14 would also affect D15.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> What do you mean D15 is unrelated to D14? They have the exact same transponder package, so the design of the two is pretty similar (though they do have different power capability)
> 
> They won't be using their transponders in exactly the same way, since D14 will provide Ka hi from 99, but that is already provided from 103 where D15 seems likely to be destined. ...


Were you able to find any further information about D15's planned Ka band payload for exactly which portion of the band it will be on? Or maybe if the CONUS beam transponders will be on one and the spotbeams on the other?

I can't locate much of anything further on D15 yet, beyond the old PR about Astrium being selected to build it and the mention that it will have 24 Ka band transponders.

As it would really seem to make the most sense that if D15 is indeed destined for 103, the CONUS tps. would be on B-band to take over for the ones on D10, and the spotbeam package to be on A-band to take the place of Spaceway 1's and fully utilize all the 8 original transponder channels assigned to A-band.


----------



## slice1900

Sorry, I guess I misspoke. What is identical between them is the RDBS package. I didn't really look for information on Ka & Ku, since I was only looking for RDBS. There may be differences there.


----------



## slice1900

Not relevant to D14 and D15, but perhaps to future Directv launches. SpaceX had their first successful launch of a geostationary satellite today, lifting SES-8 into orbit.

Another option (this time a private American company) for Directv to consider for future launches.


----------



## satlaunch

SpaceX launch log is overload in next 3-4 years. I do not imagine how they will open a slot for DirecTV satellites.


----------



## HarleyD

SpaceX needs more than one successful launch before I would put my eggs in that basket.

I wish them well and hope they are successful, but if it's up to me I'm not hanging the lifeblood of my business on their learning curve


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> And besides d10 isn't in imminent failure. It's a concern that it's runnin a backup instead of a main system. No one has said its about to die, they have said they want to be ready in case it did.


Just going by what the article said.

I suspect that there aren't too many options should the backup fail given the tone.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Another option (this time a private American company) for Directv to consider for future launches.


As DIRECTV's satellites are among the heaviest in the business, time will tell but DIRECTV 14 weighs a little less than double SES8 and that limits options significantly.


----------



## Diana C

ALL satellite launch schedules slip...the initial dates are always optimistic, and almost always slip by an average of a quarter. In particular, Ariane is notorious for delays (for lots of reasons, including damage to launch pad from previous launches, weather, spacecraft integration issues, etc.).

SeaLaunch being out of operation had overloaded launch schedules at Canaveral, Baikonur and Kourou and is still being felt. This delay is not surprising.


----------



## georule

About time for the kibitzers to make their return to this thread. And look, there's one now! (he said, looking in the mirror).


----------



## LameLefty

It's good to see SpaceX enter the commercial launch market but it'll be awhile before they are in a position to make a strong bid for most Directv launches. The F9 has a maximum published payload of about 4,850 kg to a standard GTO. The last 3 Directv satellites massed over 6,000 kg at launch. I don't have a reference handy, but I think the SSL 1300 bus vehicles planned for D14 and 15 will be in the same general class, give or take. And in any case, SpaceX is booked for the next several years anyway. 

Once F9 Heavy flies, it'll have the payload capability (and a lot more, to boot) but cost may well be prohibitive. The "regular" F9 is undersized for Directv's fleet, but F9H is well over-sized. :shrug:

In any case, Arianespace is busy, busy, busy, with three different launchers now operating out of Kourou (Ariane 5, Vega and Soyuz). Well, maybe 4 if you count the two main variants of Ariane 5. As Diana points out, slips on their end aren't that uncommon. A few months either way won't matter anyway over the course of a 15+ year operating life.


----------



## HoTat2

From D14's technical Schedule S;

Mass of spacecraft without fuel: 3,573.1 Kg

Mass of fuel and disposables at launch: 2,929.3 Kg

Mass of spacecraft and fuel at launch: 6,502.4 Kg

Nope, don't think SpaceX's F9 can handle it at present, even if it were available ...

 :nono2:


----------



## inkahauts

Just going by what the article said.

I suspect that there aren't too many options should the backup fail given the tone.


And i bet even if d10 fell out of the sky today nothing would get taken off the air.


----------



## HoTat2

inkahauts said:


> And i bet even if d10 fell out of the sky today nothing would get taken off the air.


Yeah ...

Except maybe for some HD PPV channels I guess;

As a reminder from back in 2011 when DIRECTV first reported D10's problem in SEC filings;



> DirecTV said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that its DirecTV 10 satellite experienced problems with its propulsion system in the third quarter of 2011.
> The company said that "During the third quarter of 2011, the propulsion system used to maintain DirecTV U.S.' D10 satellite's position in orbit temporarily ceased to function. If the propulsion system were to permanently fail, we would be required to de-orbit the satellite and record an impairment charge for its remaining book value, which was approximately $274 million at 30 September 2011. *DirecTV U.S. currently has sufficient backup capacity to continue broadcasting most of the channels broadcast from this satellite; however, we would lose some of our HD pay-per-view channels if this satellite has to be de-orbited before additional capacity becomes available. We do not believe the loss of such channels would materially affect our results of operations or financial position."*


And I admit to finding this quite surprising as I would have thought the total loss of linear channel capacity provided by all 14 CONUS transponders comprising 103cb would be very tough to absorb completely by the other birds without D14's addition.

Guess not ....


----------



## slice1900

LameLefty said:


> It's good to see SpaceX enter the commercial launch market but it'll be awhile before they are in a position to make a strong bid for most Directv launches. The F9 has a maximum published payload of about 4,850 kg to a standard GTO. The last 3 Directv satellites massed over 6,000 kg at launch. I don't have a reference handy, but I think the SSL 1300 bus vehicles planned for D14 and 15 will be in the same general class, give or take. And in any case, SpaceX is booked for the next several years anyway.
> Once F9 Heavy flies, it'll have the payload capability (and a lot more, to boot) but cost may well be prohibitive. The "regular" F9 is undersized for Directv's fleet, but F9H is well over-sized. :shrug:


Can't launch vehicles lift more than one satellite into orbit at once? Being too small for Directv's satellites is a show stopper, and I hadn't realized that was the case with the Falcon 9. Being too big, on the other hand, seems like less of a problem, assuming the remaining capacity of the Falcon Heavy can be filled - which maybe I shouldn't assume.

According to Wikipedia, the Falcon Heavy (they renamed it from the Falcon 9 Heavy) is capable of lifting 21,000 kg to geostationary transfer orbit, at a cost per launch of $77 - $135 million, versus $56 million for Falcon 9 with a lift capacity of just under 5000 kg. If Directv was taking up a third of the payload of the Falcon Heavy, that would be as little as $25 - $45 million. Any idea how that compares to what they're paying now?

The fact SpaceX is booked up for a few years doesn't seem to be too much of a problem, considering that there haven't been any announcements for satellites beyond D15. Given that D14 was announced in June 2010 and will be launched almost four years later, if they announced D16 today they would be looking at a launch in 2016 or more likely 2017. According to the launch manifest on SpaceX's site, there is one Falcon Heavy launch currently scheduled for 2016, and one for 2017.

They may not choose to use SpaceX, especially if the next satellite is announced in the near future, but they should at least have the choice available to them given how long it takes from announcement to launch.


----------



## longrider

slice1900 said:


> Can't launch vehicles lift more than one satellite into orbit at once? Being too small for Directv's satellites is a show stopper, and I hadn't realized that was the case with the Falcon 9. Being too big, on the other hand, seems like less of a problem, assuming the remaining capacity of the Falcon Heavy can be filled - which maybe I shouldn't assume.


I am not 100% sure but believe that Arianespace has done that with the Ariane5. A payload would consist of 2 or even 3 satellites at one time


----------



## bobnielsen

longrider said:


> I am not 100% sure but believe that Arianespace has done that with the Ariane5. A payload would consist of 2 or even 3 satellites at one time


That has happened many times and not just with the Ariane. There was a LEO launch last month of a Minotaur-1 carrying 29 (small) satellites.


----------



## HoTat2

Yes;

Thus one of the meanings of the up to three letter trailing designation of a successful launch's COSPAR number I suppose.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> And I admit to finding this quite surprising as I would have thought the total loss of linear channel capacity provided by all 14 CONUS transponders comprising 103cb would be very tough to absorb completely by the other birds without D14's addition.


I believe that too little attention has been paid to the coverage of available frequencies given the current fleet and how little bandwidth is left at the appointed slots. If all that DIRECTV 10 brings in the net is a handful of PPV channels, they may be more afraid to lean on it that some seem to believe. It seems odd that losing DIRECTV 10 wouldn't have a significant impact on LIL as one Spaceway 1 has a much less spot beam capacity (I recall that it is half or less).

It isn't realistic to assume that each launch brings a big boost in usable bandwidth. Some of the previous launches have brought considerable replacement bandwidth.

Can someone here offer an accounting of what's left in DIRECTV's licenses for the Ka bandwidth in three slots (ignoring that a 101W Ka antenna isn't currently available)?


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> I believe that too little attention has been paid to the coverage of available frequencies given the current fleet and how little bandwidth is left at the appointed slots. If all that DIRECTV 10 brings in the net is a handful of PPV channels, they may be more afraid to lean on it that some seem to believe.
> 
> It isn't realistic to assume that each launch brings a big boost in usable bandwidth. Some of the previous launches have brought considerable replacement bandwidth. ...


Well D10 is contributing a lot more than just "a handful of PPVs" at the moment.

However, looking at the numbers in the latest transponder maps release, I guess I can understand DIRECTV's claim to have the reserve capacity in case of D10's eventual failure. As it's present share of carried channels is by far the lowest of the three "D" type birds and also has the highest proportion of full time linear HD channels to PPV ones of the three.

D10 - 48 linear HD broadcast channels including 14 HD PPV

D11 - 78 linear HD broadcast channels including 21 HD PPV

D12 - 87 linear HD broadcast channels including 6 HD PPV. Plus 7 additional MPEG-4 SD channels.

So if we lost D10 today for instance, all DIRECTV would have to do is drop some or all of the 14 HD PPV channels on it and move the remaining 34 linear HD channels over to D11, and 12.

Possibly by going to a higher channel loading on their CONUS transponders than the customary 5-per. they normally use.



> ... It seems odd that losing DIRECTV 10 wouldn't have a significant impact on LIL as one Spaceway 1 has a much less spot beam capacity (I recall that it is half or less).


That shouldn't be any problem since the spotbeam payload on D12 is identical to D10's so may completely take over for it, if it hasn't happened already.



> ... Can someone here offer an accounting of what's left in DIRECTV's licenses for the Ka bandwidth in three slots (ignoring that a 101W Ka antenna isn't currently available)?


AFAIK, their Ka license authorizes the same two 500 MHz wide bands (or 1000 MHz aggregate) at 99, 101, and 103.


----------



## LameLefty

slice1900 said:


> Can't launch vehicles lift more than one satellite into orbit at once? Being too small for Directv's satellites is a show stopper, and I hadn't realized that was the case with the Falcon 9. Being too big, on the other hand, seems like less of a problem, assuming the remaining capacity of the Falcon Heavy can be filled - which maybe I shouldn't assume.
> 
> According to Wikipedia, the Falcon Heavy (they renamed it from the Falcon 9 Heavy) is capable of lifting 21,000 kg to geostationary transfer orbit, at a cost per launch of $77 - $135 million, versus $56 million for Falcon 9 with a lift capacity of just under 5000 kg. If Directv was taking up a third of the payload of the Falcon Heavy, that would be as little as $25 - $45 million. Any idea how that compares to what they're paying now?
> 
> The fact SpaceX is booked up for a few years doesn't seem to be too much of a problem, considering that there haven't been any announcements for satellites beyond D15. Given that D14 was announced in June 2010 and will be launched almost four years later, if they announced D16 today they would be looking at a launch in 2016 or more likely 2017. According to the launch manifest on SpaceX's site, there is one Falcon Heavy launch currently scheduled for 2016, and one for 2017.
> 
> They may not choose to use SpaceX, especially if the next satellite is announced in the near future, but they should at least have the choice available to them given how long it takes from announcement to launch.





longrider said:


> I am not 100% sure but believe that Arianespace has done that with the Ariane5. A payload would consist of 2 or even 3 satellites at one time





bobnielsen said:


> That has happened many times and not just with the Ariane. There was a LEO launch last month of a Minotaur-1 carrying 29 (small) satellites.


There are several issues related to multiple-vehicle deliveries to GTO. First, all of the multiple payloads have to be delivered to the launch site in fairly close time-proximity to one another; no one wants to have a multi-hundred million dollar payload just sitting around in a clean room (not to mention that most launch locations don't have an excess of clean room space for storage anyway).

Second, all three payloads have to be fueled and processed with operating fluids, batteries, etc. prior to integration with the launch vehicle. This takes time and is generally considered fairly hazardous if the satellite has hypergolic fluids onboard for attitude control (most do). So that has to be done in a hazmat facility; most launch operations don't have multiple hypergolic loading sites and crews to process multiple payloads in parallel. Doing them serially takes longer and puts more strain on ground crews to sustain that level of intensity in the hazmat ops. Then the fueled and ready spacecraft have to be physically and electrically mated to their payload adapter, and then the entire cluster of payloads encapsulated for launch inside the fairing. Look at the Arianespace site for a cutaway view of how Ariane 5 does it; it's not terribly simple. I don't think SpaceX has even shown concept art or advertised their intentions of developing this capability for F9H at all. Their target market for this vehicle is PROBABLY single large LEO payloads for the USAF and NSA, and large-payload GTO missions, using the excess delta-v for reusability operations if those prove to be viable and economically advantageous.

And third, cost. The prices quoted by SpaceX are taken with a large grain of salt by people who know the GTO launch business. They're akin to the barebones prices you see advertised on newspaper sales flyers; that price typically wouldn't even include a rocket payload adapter, or pay for the very expensive ground processing and integration ops. Now even so, there is no doubt SpaceX promises lower prices than competitors for the payloads it can fly. The real question will be if they can maintain regularly-scheduled missions, one after another, for several years on end, and still keep their prices as low as promised. IF they do that, the entire launch industry will be turned upside down. One can hope.

Anyway, back to the main topic - multiple payload operations for GTO missions has been a staple for Ariansepace but the operational and timing issues have proven to be big enough to lead to the development of Ariane 6, a smaller booster for single GTO missions, which is still a ways away. So really, for now anyway, SpaceX is off the radar for typical CONUS Directv payloads. F9H may be marketed for that purpose in the future, but that vehicle hasn't even flown yet. Time will tell.


----------



## slice1900

Thanks for that really good explanation, LameLefty! I guess the one benefit SpaceX will have even if Directv never uses them is that whatever it launches frees up capacity for everyone else.


----------



## studechip

HoTat2 said:


> Well D10 is contributing a lot more than just "a handful of PPVs" at the moment.
> 
> However, looking at the numbers in the latest transponder maps release, I guess I can understand DIRECTV's claim to have the reserve capacity in case of D10's eventual failure. As it's present share of carried channels is by far the lowest of the three "D" type birds and also has the highest proportion of full time linear HD channels to PPV ones of the three.
> 
> D10 - 48 linear HD broadcast channels including 14 HD PPV
> 
> D11 - 78 linear HD broadcast channels including 21 HD PPV
> 
> D12 - 87 linear HD broadcast channels including 6 HD PPV. Plus 7 additional MPEG-4 SD channels.
> 
> So if we lost D10 today for instance, all DIRECTV would have to do is drop some or all of the 14 HD PPV channels on it and move the remaining 34 linear HD channels over to D11, and 12.
> 
> Possibly by going to a higher channel loading on their CONUS transponders than *the customary 5-per. they normally use.*
> 
> That shouldn't be any problem since the spotbeam payload on D12 is identical to D10's so may completely take over for it, if it hasn't happened already.
> 
> AFAIK, their Ka license authorizes the same two 500 MHz wide bands (or 1000 MHz aggregate) at 99, 101, and 103.


Many have six.


----------



## HoTat2

studechip said:


> Many have six.


I know;

But I assume the "norm" is still five.


----------



## georule

Just because they haven't rolled out many new channels lately doesn't necessarily mean the back-end upgrades haven't continued (assuming we're correct about the new encoders). If they have a budget, and staff who are on a roll doing that kind of work, why not keep doing it?


----------



## inkahauts

Well D10 is contributing a lot more than just "a handful of PPVs" at the moment.

However, looking at the numbers in the latest transponder maps release, I guess I can understand DIRECTV's claim to have the reserve capacity in case of D10's eventual failure. As it's present share of carried channels is by far the lowest of the three "D" type birds and also has the highest proportion of full time linear HD channels to PPV ones of the three.

D10 - 48 linear HD broadcast channels including 14 HD PPV

D11 - 78 linear HD broadcast channels including 21 HD PPV

D12 - 87 linear HD broadcast channels including 6 HD PPV. Plus 7 additional MPEG-4 SD channels.

So if we lost D10 today for instance, all DIRECTV would have to do is drop some or all of the 14 HD PPV channels on it and move the remaining 34 linear HD channels over to D11, and 12.

Possibly by going to a higher channel loading on their CONUS transponders than the customary 5-per. they normally use.

That shouldn't be any problem since the spotbeam payload on D12 is identical to D10's so may completely take over for it, if it hasn't happened already.

AFAIK, their Ka license authorizes the same two 500 MHz wide bands (or 1000 MHz aggregate) at 99, 101, and 103.


I am pretty sure that DIRECTV could lose any one sat in their entire fleet an not really lose much. 

Also we know that all the satelites have spare unused transponders on then that they could light up if a different sat died and I'm guessing they could use that in the freq that is currently used by whatever say died. Just a thought. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## HoTat2

inkahauts said:


> I am pretty sure that DIRECTV could lose any one sat in their entire fleet an not really lose much.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree with this all things being equal;
> 
> That is to say if D10 were fully healthy like 11, and 12.
> 
> But with D10 having problems, I can't really say DIRECTV wouldn't lose a lot if D11 or 12 were to be lost.
Click to expand...




> inkahauts said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Also we know that all the satelites have spare unused transponders on then that they could light up if a different sat died and I'm guessing they could use that in the freq that is currently used by whatever say died. Just a thought.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly;
> 
> Though admittedly I'm not aware of any such capability nor ever read of such in any of the LOA narratives for DIRECTV's satellites of spare transponders ability to operate on a different band than the ones they're intended to act as spares for.
> 
> So then AFAIK, the loss of D10 would mean the loss of all 14 B-band (downlink 18.3-18.8 GHz) CONUS transponders of 103cb.
Click to expand...


----------



## slice1900

Well, assuming D15 goes to 103, whatever risk there is of losing 103cb due to problems with D10 is only felt for another year or so. If D15 has the ability to broadcast Ka lo - hopefully it does! I'm not sure if its exact capabilities have been made public yet.

Like you, I'm curious about exactly how much frequency reconfigurability these satellites have, if any. I think it is probably safe to assume a satellite designed to broadcast Ku can't be reconfigured for Ka, and vice versa. But could a Ka hi sat do Ka lo, 1.4 GHz lower? Could a Ka lo sat do RDBS, only 1 GHz lower? What about the more flexible Spaceway sats? Does their programmability extend into the frequency range they're broadcasting, or is that fixed and the flexibility only pertains to what is broadcast within that fixed range?

My 'gut feeling' is that the frequencies are probably fixed in the design because it would lead to more efficient transmission in the intended range than a more flexible transmitter would allow, and/or a more flexible transmitter would be significantly more expensive, but I truly have no idea. This is getting into all those nasty RF details like antennas and transmitters about which I'm woefully ignorant


----------



## Diana C

Transponders are basically refractive devices, they are designed to take an incoming frequency and translate the signal a specific number of hertz up or down for retransmission. The acceptable "in" frequency range is determined by many factors, including the receive antenna array, the design of the additional circuitry on board, as well as the transponder itself. So, if the uplink and downlink delta is the same, a transponder can be used on particular frequency in the design range. A Ku transponder can't be reconfigured for Ka, but a Ka hi could be used for Ka low, and vice versa. IIRC, the uplink/downlink pairing is quite different for RDBS, so I doubt Ka transponders can be stretched that far. If they could, they could have tested RDBS without launching a satellite with specific RDBS transponders.


----------



## HoTat2

Diana C said:


> Transponders are basically refractive devices, they are designed to take an incoming frequency and translate the signal a specific number of hertz up or down for retransmission. The acceptable "in" frequency range is determined by many factors, including the receive antenna array, the design of the additional circuitry on board, as well as the transponder itself. So, if the uplink and downlink delta is the same, a transponder can be used on particular frequency in the design range. A Ku transponder can't be reconfigured for Ka, but a Ka hi could be used for Ka low, and vice versa. IIRC, the uplink/downlink pairing is quite different for RDBS, so I doubt Ka transponders can be stretched that far. If they could, they could have tested RDBS without launching a satellite with specific RDBS transponders.


It's just that I would think that any RF transmitter potentially placed on the air would have to be licensed by the FCC and released as a public notification;

So there should be some mention of this capability in the various FCC applications DIRECTV submits for authorization if it exist. Yet there is no specification of this in D12's (in this case) paperwork of an ability to operate any of it's active or spare CONUS transponders on the Ka B band.

Only it's LiL payload is licensed for it (i.e. tps. 15-24 of 103(s) )


----------



## Diana C

Oh, absolutely...they have to have a license before they can actually use the frequency. If a satellite was only licensed to operate in Ka Hi, and the owner wants to operate it in Ka Lo, they would have to get the license amended.

I'm assuming that the Ka transponders are all the same design, whether destined for "Hi' or "Lo" band use. However, if the transponders themselves are different (that is, they can't accept the opposite band's input frequency and/or generate the output frequency) because the band is too wide for a single design, then the transponders are only "agile" across the given band (Ka Hi vs. Ka Lo).

But any transponder (Ku, Ka Hi or Ka Lo) can be used on any "channel" within the band.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> I am pretty sure that DIRECTV could lose any one sat in their entire fleet an not really lose much.


Without suggesting any manner of failure, there seems to be an awful lot riding on DIRECTV 8.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Well, assuming D15 goes to 103, whatever risk there is of losing 103cb due to problems with D10 is only felt for another year or so. If D15 has the ability to broadcast Ka lo - hopefully it does! I'm not sure if its exact capabilities have been made public yet.


Several seem to take for granted that DIRECTV 15 is obviously bound for 103W. As I pointed out above, the CONUS situation at 101W is perhaps the least well backed up. After all, DIRECTV 15 was announced as a spare (almost certainly because DIRECTV 12 went directly into service). It doesn't appear to be set up to fully replace any one satellite but is rather set up to provide partial backup capacity at any slot (99W-119W):

30 Ku transponders (presumably 24MHz wide)
24 Ka transponders (presumably 36MHz wide)
18 RDBS transponders (who cares?)

As we're still some interval away from launch of DIRECTV 15, I suppose things could change and, like DIRECTV 12, it could be reconfigured to cover a specific failure but at this point, I'm not seeing it.

DIRECTV 9S is configured to back up DIRECTV 4S or DIRECTV 7S so the Ku spot beam situation should be covered (although DIRECTV 4S is getting up there in years).


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> Well D10 is contributing a lot more than just "a handful of PPVs" at the moment.


Nonetheless, absent DIRECTV 10, that's all they claimed they would lose.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Nonetheless, absent DIRECTV 10, that's all they claimed they would lose.


But that statement doesn't mean D10 is only contributing "a few PPVs" at present;

Only that there is enough reserve capacity on the other birds (presumably D11 and 12) to absorb all of D10's traffic in the event of it's complete failure except for some PPV channels it is carrying.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> But that statement doesn't mean D10 is only contributing "a few PPVs" at present;


Which is why I qualified my statement with "in the net".


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> ... 18 RDBS transponders (who cares?)
> 
> 
> 
> They're 36 MHz wide, and what do you mean "who cares?"
> 
> We do! (or should), as in "DIRECTV subscribers"
> 
> As that's the standard bandwidth used by DIRECTV needed for HD programming.
> 
> As we're still some interval away from launch of DIRECTV 15, I suppose things could change and, like DIRECTV 12, it could be reconfigured to cover a specific failure but at this point, I'm not seeing it.
Click to expand...

Huh?  

What specific re-configuration capability are you referring to which D12 has which you can't see D15 as having?



> ... DIRECTV 9S is configured to back up DIRECTV 4S or DIRECTV 7S so the Ku spot beam situation should be covered (although DIRECTV 4S is getting up there in years).


Actually harsh it appears the other way around with the older D4S largely backing up D9S nowadays.

For instance all 10 even numbered CONUS transponders from 101 are coming from D9S, not D4S' CONUS payload which has been shutdown for some time now.

At best D4S is relegated to spotbeam duty only, either in whole or sharing the duties with D9S' spotbeam payload (more likely the later case).


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Which is why I qualified my statement with "in the net".


Got you;

I thought you meant "network" by "net" in that post.

And yes, DIRECTV is apparently not leaning heavily on D10 these days in comparison to D11 and 12 as the channel numbers I posted earlier suggest, obviously due to its problematic status.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Without suggesting any manner of failure, there seems to be an awful lot riding on DIRECTV 8.


Why is there more riding on 8 than 9S? Is there any reason to believe that 8 should be more likely to have problems than 9S?


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Several seem to take for granted that DIRECTV 15 is obviously bound for 103W. As I pointed out above, the CONUS situation at 101W is perhaps the least well backed up. After all, DIRECTV 15 was announced as a spare (almost certainly because DIRECTV 12 went directly into service). It doesn't appear to be set up to fully replace any one satellite but is rather set up to provide partial backup capacity at any slot (99W-119W):
> 
> 30 Ku transponders (presumably 24MHz wide)
> 24 Ka transponders (presumably 36MHz wide)
> 18 RDBS transponders (who cares?)
> 
> As we're still some interval away from launch of DIRECTV 15, I suppose things could change and, like DIRECTV 12, it could be reconfigured to cover a specific failure but at this point, I'm not seeing it.
> 
> DIRECTV 9S is configured to back up DIRECTV 4S or DIRECTV 7S so the Ku spot beam situation should be covered (although DIRECTV 4S is getting up there in years).


There's no reason D15 can't go to 103W while still backing up 101, as it can always be moved there if something happens with Directv 8 or 9S. Having it sit there and wait for something to happen would silly, unless Directv has reason to believe a failure of 8 or 9S is imminent. Instead of waiting at 101, it could provide BSS from 103, and if the FCC licenses Ku sats on a 2* spacing might be used for that someday as well. Directv's 101 satellites could be fine for years to come, plenty of time for them to build and launch a dedicated replacement.

I wouldn't worry about 119 at all. It just isn't as important as it once was and will become less so when D14's capacity comes online and the non-HD markets get HD locals. If something happened to it, 110's 3 CONUS beams that are currently carrying no channels could pick up almost half the CONUS content from 119 and they could probably find a way to do most of the rest (maybe losing some of the PPV channels) It would be a big waste to use a satellite like D15 to provide the 7 CONUS and 4 spot beam transponder slots D7S currently provides from 119.

I don't think it makes much sense for Directv to keep using 110 & 119 for customer content in CONUS in the long run anyway. When they start weaning people off SD only setups, perhaps the ones using 101/110/119 would be the first to migrate, so they can free up those transponders by the time those satellites reach EOL. Maybe they don't replace them for CONUS at all - they could perhaps make a deal with Dish to give them those slots in exchange for a free long term spotbeam capacity lease on Dish's 110 satellite, to be used for Puerto Rico. Or dedicate their slots at 110 & 119 for internal use, similar to Ka from 101.


----------



## inkahauts

Several seem to take for granted that DIRECTV 15 is obviously bound for 103W. As I pointed out above, the CONUS situation at 101W is perhaps the least well backed up. After all, DIRECTV 15 was announced as a spare (almost certainly because DIRECTV 12 went directly into service). It doesn't appear to be set up to fully replace any one satellite but is rather set up to provide partial backup capacity at any slot (99W-119W):

30 Ku transponders (presumably 24MHz wide)
24 Ka transponders (presumably 36MHz wide)
18 RDBS transponders (who cares?)

As we're still some interval away from launch of DIRECTV 15, I suppose things could change and, like DIRECTV 12, it could be reconfigured to cover a specific failure but at this point, I'm not seeing it.

DIRECTV 9S is configured to back up DIRECTV 4S or DIRECTV 7S so the Ku spot beam situation should be covered (although DIRECTV 4S is getting up there in years).


You can't honestly believe that d12 was truly meant to always be a spare only and that the real hope wasn't to simply put it into service to expand capacity. I think it got launched exactly when they had planned all along.


----------



## inkahauts

Several seem to take for granted that DIRECTV 15 is obviously bound for 103W. As I pointed out above, the CONUS situation at 101W is perhaps the least well backed up. After all, DIRECTV 15 was announced as a spare (almost certainly because DIRECTV 12 went directly into service). It doesn't appear to be set up to fully replace any one satellite but is rather set up to provide partial backup capacity at any slot (99W-119W):

30 Ku transponders (presumably 24MHz wide)
24 Ka transponders (presumably 36MHz wide)
18 RDBS transponders (who cares?)

As we're still some interval away from launch of DIRECTV 15, I suppose things could change and, like DIRECTV 12, it could be reconfigured to cover a specific failure but at this point, I'm not seeing it.

DIRECTV 9S is configured to back up DIRECTV 4S or DIRECTV 7S so the Ku spot beam situation should be covered (although DIRECTV 4S is getting up there in years).


D12 was reconfigured so it wasn't identical to d10 and d11 so it could add more coverage of bandwidth. Where do you come up with this stuff? Can you provide a link?


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Having it sit there and wait for something to happen would silly, unless Directv has reason to believe a failure of 8 or 9S is imminent.


DIRECTV has already deployed its designated "in-orbit spare" so it seems logical that they would seek to launch another one.


> It just isn't as important as it once was and will become less so when D14's capacity comes online and the non-HD markets get HD locals.


Somehow I think you're too quick to dismiss how important Ku service remains at DIRECTV. There's still lots of hardware out there that DIRECTV 14 wouldn't serve in a downlink capacity.


> I don't think it makes much sense for Directv to keep using 110 & 119 for customer content in CONUS in the long run anyway. When they start weaning people off SD only setups, perhaps the ones using 101/110/119 would be the first to migrate, so they can free up those transponders by the time those satellites reach EOL.


While this sounds good on paper, the weening process with lots of customers often takes quite a while. Assuming everyone is pretty much ready to cut over is folly and assuming that customer base that relies on Ku in some form is negligible is also folly.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> DIRECTV has already deployed its designated "in-orbit spare" so it seems logical that they would seek to launch another one.


Using the new satellite for programming and relegating older satellites to being the "in-orbit spare" is a prominent option. Why build something new and park it unused for the best portion of its life?


----------



## inkahauts

And more likely why wouldn't you have multiple satelites doing plenty of work but not maxed and leave enough available on all the other satelites to take care of any one sat dieing. I believe that what they are generally doing now. 

Keeps all of them working some and none of them at full power so they might last a bit longer.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> D12 was reconfigured so it wasn't identical to d10 and d11 so it could add more coverage of bandwidth. Where do you come up with this stuff? Can you provide a link?


Because DIRECTV isn't required to tell anyone how they are using their assets (unless it somehow might materially impact financials), there's not much out there that indicates what's really going on. I don't think we know what the distribution is between DIRECTV 10 and DIRECTV 12 nor do we know with certainty the actual distribution of transponders at 101W.

You would think there would be a much better showing of their commitment to meeting 100% LIL market coverage (still missing around 12 markets altogether and HD in 13).


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Why build something new and park it unused for the best portion of its life?


Flexibility to move it when and where you need to. As DIRECTV and their partners typically take five years to get satellites into service and moving an in-service satellite is doubtless not trivial, this is a big consideration. They've not announced anything to cover the period from 2016 through 2018 at this point yet 2016 is their projected year for UltraHD.

We know from the recent modification of the DIRECTV 4S license that DIRECTV thinks they've nearly doubled its projected life by reducing its load.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> DIRECTV has already deployed its designated "in-orbit spare" so it seems logical that they would seek to launch another one.
> 
> Somehow I think you're too quick to dismiss how important Ku service remains at DIRECTV. There's still lots of hardware out there that DIRECTV 14 wouldn't serve in a downlink capacity.


My point was not that D15 can't be an in orbit spare, just that having a spare and giving it little/nothing to do are two very different things. 101 needs backup, but with the rated lifetime of D8 & D9S expiring in 2020/2021, they don't need on-station help to share the load further than they already do with each other. Directv could have D15 doing something more useful elsewhere, rather than taking a 1/3 share of the load at 101. They can always move it to 101 should something happen. Keep in mind, there's just as much chance they could have problems at 99 or 103 and need help there instead. For that matter, Directv has to take into consideration the small chance D14's launch vehicle blows up on the pad, in which case D15 goes to 99.

And I wasn't dismissing Ku/SD, just pointing out that 119 is the least important orbital to Directv (between 99/101/103/119) It has much less content, and that content has less wide appeal. SD will be important to Directv for many years to come, but that doesn't mean 119 will be. They may stop using it well before they get rid of SD - just as they've already stopped using 110 for CONUS customer content.


----------



## inkahauts

Because DIRECTV isn't required to tell anyone how they are using their assets (unless it somehow might materially impact financials), there's not much out there that indicates what's really going on. I don't think we know what the distribution is between DIRECTV 10 and DIRECTV 12 nor do we know with certainty the actual distribution of transponders at 101W.

You would think there would be a much better showing of their commitment to meeting 100% LIL market coverage (still missing around 12 markets altogether and HD in 13).


Your suggestions aren't supported the way what I said was. There is documentation that they made the transponders work in different freq on d12 than what d10 and d11 are set for...

And if you mean what channels on what transponders for what kind of load is carried by d10 and d11 and d12, yes actually, we do know and have the data. Have had it for ages.

As for more markets, the rules simply talk about if you have one Hi Definition in a market, you must be able to offer all Hi Definition channels in the market. Doesn't say you have to offer every market. There are plenty of reasons they may not be offering Lil in a few small markets yet, and that may change with d14. Maybe they don't yet have the capacity to do it right, and I don't see them ever adding a sd only market. It'll be Hi Definition with non Hi Definition channels in sd mepeg4 from here on out,so until they have the capacity for all the channels in any new market to be in Hi Definition, they won't be adding any more IMHO. And I haven't bothered checking to see what their capacity is in the few areas they don't yet have covered.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Flexibility to move it when and where you need to. As DIRECTV and their partners typically take five years to get satellites into service and moving an in-service satellite is doubtless not trivial, this is a big consideration. They've not announced anything to cover the period from 2016 through 2018 at this point yet 2016 is their projected year for UltraHD.
> 
> We know from the recent modification of the DIRECTV 4S license that DIRECTV thinks they've nearly doubled its projected life by reducing its load.


You seem to be assuming that the Ka hi capacity from D14, as well as whatever use they make of BSS on D14 and D15 can't be used for 4K. Why is that?


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Why is there more riding on 8 than 9S?


DIRECTV 9S shares the slot with DIRECTV 4S, the satellite it is destined to replace.

DIRECTV 8 replaced DIRECTV 2 and DIRECTV 3, both of which have moved on.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> They may stop using it well before they get rid of SD - just as they've already stopped using 110 for CONUS customer content.


With only four CONUS transponders initially (now just one), 110W wasn't a major issue. DIRECTV 7S has 11 transponders with a whole mess of spot beams delivering ~493 SD LIL.

Remember also that as they would rid themselves of SD LIL from 119W, they'll have to find room for them on the Ka spot beams. Losing channels because of bandwidth is something DIRECTV surely doesn't want to repeat.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> You seem to be assuming that the Ka hi capacity from D14, as well as whatever use they make of BSS on D14 and D15 can't be used for 4K. Why is that?


I make no assumptions about BSS or RDBS as DIRECTV hasn't yet revealed an interest in using it for residential downlink. It could happen if DIRECTV 15 ends up at a slot where DIRECTV owns the necessary bandwidth -- or not.

As for what DIRECTV 14 adds to the total, we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## inkahauts

With only four CONUS transponders initially (now just one), 110W wasn't a major issue. DIRECTV 7S has 11 transponders with a whole mess of spot beams delivering ~493 SD LIL.

Remember also that as they would rid themselves of SD LIL from 119W, they'll have to find room for them on the Ka spot beams. Losing channels because of bandwidth is something DIRECTV surely doesn't want to repeat.


Repeat? When did DIRECTV lose channels before do to bandwidth issues?


----------



## inkahauts

I make no assumptions about BSS or RDBS as DIRECTV hasn't yet revealed an interest in using it for residential downlink. It could happen if DIRECTV 15 ends up at a slot where DIRECTV owns the necessary bandwidth -- or not.

As for what DIRECTV 14 adds to the total, we'll have to wait and see.


Could also happen after the get d14 up and running...

But I almost wonder if they'd wait for d15 as well so they cane have two satelites able to do bss before they beginning rolling it out in mass...


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Your suggestions aren't supported the way what I said was. There is documentation that they made the transponders work in different freq on d12 than what d10 and d11 are set for...


Links?


> As for more markets, the rules simply talk about if you have one Hi Definition in a market, you must be able to offer all Hi Definition channels in the market. Doesn't say you have to offer every market.


I'm talking about LIL in general, not just HD LIL. I recall that there is a separate requirement to have 100% LIL saturation by some deadline. Perhaps I recall incorrectly.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Repeat? When did DIRECTV lose channels before do to bandwidth issues?


I was speaking of the flap regarding the temporary loss of one or more channels on Sunday days due to crowding by NFL ST. As much as I disdain linking to an article borne of a TVP blog post:

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/91484-d-drops-tnt-hd-to-make-room-for-sunday-ticket/?p=1062694


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> With only four CONUS transponders initially (now just one), 110W wasn't a major issue. DIRECTV 7S has 11 transponders with a whole mess of spot beams delivering ~493 SD LIL.
> 
> Remember also that as they would rid themselves of SD LIL from 119W, they'll have to find room for them on the Ka spot beams. Losing channels because of bandwidth is something DIRECTV surely doesn't want to repeat.


Assuming D7S has a typical 15 year lifespan, that gives it until 2019 before it would reach EOL. A lot can change in five years.

If they wanted to vacate 119 (and I have no idea if they will, just arguing it as a possible alternative) I'm sure they can find a way, given that there would be multiple options for how and plenty of time to implement them. And no, I'm not going to list the options for you - you'd just come up with a lot of bull**** objections to everything as you usually do, so it is a waste of my time.


----------



## inkahauts

I was speaking of the flap regarding the temporary loss of one or more channels on Sunday days due to crowding by NFL ST. As much as I disdain linking to an article borne of a TVP blog post:

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/91484-d-drops-tnt-hd-to-make-room-for-sunday-ticket/?p=1062694

That isn't something that will ever happen again. And it also not at all logical to draw any comparisons between that and this either. Not unless several satelites fall from the sky tomorrow.

If they do decide to move away from 119 for any conus broadcast, nation wide or spot, they would do it like they have done all the other moves. They'd have the replacement feeds up first then transition peoples equipment if needed, then shut down the old stuff. And part of that transition would simply be changing people's equipment so that they could shut down the mpeg2 locals from 119 and only offer the mpeg4 lil in those markets off the 103 or 99 birds. They wouldn't need to duplicate anything on 119 to one of those spots that would make no sense at all.

The bigger move move would be the foreign language stuff.

But really, unless they plan to repurpose 119 to all pr or something if that nature I don't know that I expect them to get rid of its stuff fast. I Am leaning towards expecting Hi Definition dups of the foreign stuff and 4k to pop up in bss at this point.


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> Links?I'm talking about LIL in general, not just HD LIL. I recall that there is a separate requirement to have 100% LIL saturation by some deadline. Perhaps I recall incorrectly.


http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/155388-sixtoreport-d12-satellite-info-in-post1-live/?p=2143168

They moved the freq range so it shared some of the freq used by the space way satelites. This has been said before. This allowed them to make the conus offerings on d12 in addition to d10 not a replacement for them. The spots where the same freq evidently though.

I expect that d14 Nd d15 will be similarly set so that they use space ways freq and not duplicate d10-12 as much as possible.

As for the must carry every market, I've never seen that. Only the must be able to carry all Hi Definition in a market if you carry any Hi Definition in a market.

Same as the sd version of that really...


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> That isn't something that will ever happen again. And it also not at all logical to draw any comparisons between that and this either. Not unless several satelites fall from the sky tomorrow.
> 
> If they do decide to move away from 119 for any conus broadcast, nation wide or spot, they would do it like they have done all the other moves. They'd have the replacement feeds up first then transition peoples equipment if needed, then shut down the old stuff. And part of that transition would simply be changing people's equipment so that they could shut down the mpeg2 locals from 119 and only offer the mpeg4 lil in those markets off the 103 or 99 birds. They wouldn't need to duplicate anything on 119 to one of those spots that would make no sense at all.
> 
> The bigger move move would be the foreign language stuff.
> 
> But really, unless they plan to repurpose 119 to all pr or something if that nature I don't know that I expect them to get rid of its stuff fast. I Am leaning towards expecting Hi Definition dups of the foreign stuff and 4k to pop up in bss at this point.


If they wanted to get rid of 119, I wouldn't expect it to happen fast, but I would expect the decision to be made fairly soon, so they'd know what they need to replace 119 with, if anything. There are some obvious advantages to having everything at 99/101/103, from more compact dishes to eliminating LOS issues to the one orbital so far off the range from everything else. FWIW, I would also expect 119 is not easy to pick up in Alaska/Hawaii, even with the big dish.

Directv has a ton of room for potential expansion in their primary 99/101/103 range if need be, beyond what D14 and D15 will provide with Ka hi and BSS. The most obvious is the Ka from 101 currently being used internally, which they could free up for customer broadcast if they secured capacity elsewhere to replace it, or switched to ground-based means of transmission. This alone is 6x more capacity than what they have from 119. If/when the FCC approves 2* Ku spacing, they may be able to get Ku licenses from 99 and/or 103. This is 3x or 6x more than 119. Additionally, down the road when their satellites at 101 that use BSS for uplinks are retired, they may be able to secure permission to use it for downlink instead. This is about 2.5x more than 119.

They could use 119 for PR as you suggest - that idea has a lot of merit, since it is better located for them than the 99 & 103 they currently use for their HD, and as it is Ku it is better protected from rain fade (which they would have much greater problems with, at least in some areas, than anyone in CONUS does) But doing so doesn't mean they couldn't use 119 from CONUS as well, since a spotbeam transponder can cover PR.

They could use 119 (and 110, for that matter) for internal use. Who knows, maybe 110 is already used internally? Perhaps they could make some sort of a deal with Dish, who would surely be interested in acquiring Directv's licenses at 110 & 119 for CONUS. If they didn't want to make a deal with their "enemy", there are likely others who would be interested in making a deal. I have no idea what the FCC rules are on this, perhaps if you don't use licenses yourself you must return them to the FCC rather than being able to sell/trade/lease them to others. Anyone know?


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> As for the must carry every market, I've never seen that. Only the must be able to carry all Hi Definition in a market if you carry any Hi Definition in a market.


I have no idea how the must carry rules work, but I'd be surprised surprised if within a few months after D14 is full operational they don't have all or almost all markets covered, and with HD. There might be a few exceptions for remote areas where they have so few subscribers it wouldn't be worth the expense of setting up a LRF (unless there is a deadline like harsh claims)


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> I have no idea how the must carry rules work, but I'd be surprised surprised if within a few months after D14 is full operational they don't have all or almost all markets covered, and with HD. There might be a few exceptions for remote areas where they have so few subscribers it wouldn't be worth the expense of setting up a LRF (unless there is a deadline like harsh claims)


There is no "must carry every market" rule for DirecTV ... but it would be good business sense to carry every market. Not having a market's locals means that when a customer gives up another provider to go to DirecTV they give up their locals via satellite. Cable starts with locals carriage (as required by law) and DISH carries every market in at least SD.

(There is a "must carry every market" rule for DISH ... as a way to restore the ability to carry distant networks. That rule does not apply to DirecTV since DirecTV did not lose the ability to carry distant networks.)

The "carry one carry all" rules apply equally to both satellite carriers (stations can refuse to give permission for carriage). Also if any local in a market is carried in HD all channels in that market must be offered HD carriage. If there is no local carried in HD then HD carriage is not required.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> The "carry one carry all" rules apply equally to both satellite carriers (stations can refuse to give permission for carriage). Also if any local in a market is carried in HD all channels in that market must be offered HD carriage. If there is no local carried in HD then HD carriage is not required.


Come to think of it, regardless of the rules isn't carriage pretty much optional on a per station basis now, since carriage rules only apply when stations are offering their signal for free? If the station wants to charge, which most apparently do now, a provider is under no obligation to pay. If Directv didn't want to carry certain stations they could say "we're not willing to pay for this station", and unless the station lets them carry it for free they don't have to carry it.

I agree with what you're saying that it is clearly in Directv's favor to carry locals in every market, HD in every market, or as close to that as possible. I believe they'll get there within a few months after D14 is fully operational. They probably have been or soon will be getting all the pieces they'll need in place (LRFs set up, etc.) so they can pretty much flip switches once they've got the satellite ready to go.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> If they wanted to vacate 119 (and I have no idea if they will, just arguing it as a possible alternative) I'm sure they can find a way, given that there would be multiple options for how and plenty of time to implement them.


My response was directed at what it would take to finally get rid of both 110W and 119W so it is your response that is off-base.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> That isn't something that will ever happen again.


I'm just glad you aren't denying that it happened.


> And it also not at all logical to draw any comparisons between that and this either. Not unless several satelites fall from the sky tomorrow.


It doesn't have to be tomorrow. There's still a couple of years until the next bird is planned to go live.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> There is no "must carry every market" rule for DirecTV


I was under the impression that there was but there just wasn't as much impetus to get there.

It is unfortunate that so much of the policy is spread out over SHVIA, SHVERA and STELA.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> My response was directed at what it would take to finally get rid of both 110W and 119W so it is your response that is off-base.


They've already got rid of 110, so getting rid of 119 is equivalent to getting rid of 119 & 110.

I'm talking about getting rid of the CONUS broadcasts from 110 & 119, not getting rid of the satellites themselves. However, if they're only being used for PR, they'd need a much smaller satellite, and might consider leasing transponders on someone else's satellite rather than launching one of their own to replace it/them.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> I'm just glad you aren't denying that it happened. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but outside of mere historical interest, what relevance does that example have today short of a total catastrophe say two of "D" type birds going belly-up before D14 and 15 are launched?
> 
> Sheesh harsh, you're talking ancient history here since that incident happened back in 2007 when only D10 and the leftover MPEG-2 HD feeds from the Ku satellites at 101, 110, and 119 existed for CONUS HD programming..
> 
> ... It doesn't have to be tomorrow. There's still a couple of years until the next bird is planned to go live.
Click to expand...

 :nono2:

While I'm certainly no fortune teller, I think its a more than safe assumption that there will be no such cataclysmic event with DIRECTV's birds such that we will be suddenly blown back to circa 2007 before D14 and 15 are launched.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> They've already got rid of 110, so getting rid of 119 is equivalent to getting rid of 119 & 110.
> 
> I'm talking about getting rid of the CONUS broadcasts from 110 & 119, not getting rid of the satellites themselves. However, if they're only being used for PR, they'd need a much smaller satellite, and might consider leasing transponders on someone else's satellite rather than launching one of their own to replace it/them.


And besides;

DIRECTV just spent what was undoubtedly millions of dollars on a new 13.2 meter earth station at their East Coast Uplink Facility ("ECUF") in Winchester, VA. just last year.

Call sign: E120108

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SESLIC2012062000602&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

The ECUF serves as one of the four uplink stations feeding D7S at 119.

So it looks like 119 is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

At least for spotbeam duty.

Although I'm still not exactly sure where the state of "Virginica" is.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> And besides;
> 
> DIRECTV just spent what was undoubtedly millions of dollars on a new 13.2 meter earth station at their East Coast Uplink Facility ("ECUF") in Winchester, VA. just last year.
> 
> Call sign: E120108
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SESLIC2012062000602&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number
> 
> The ECUF serves as one of the four uplink stations feeding D7S at 119.
> 
> So it looks like 119 is here to stay for the foreseeable future.
> 
> At least for spotbeam duty.
> 
> Although I'm still not exactly sure where the state of "Virginica" is.


Is it a fixed dish, or can it be aimed? If the former I might agree with you, if the latter there's nothing stopping them from aiming it elsewhere in the future if it was no longer needed to uplink to 119. Either way, Directv would have the option of using re-tasking the 119 bandwidth for internal use like Ka from 101.

As I said before, there's no reason to believe Directv plans to change their use of 119, but I don't see anything preventing them from doing so, either. They'd simply need to give themselves enough lead time on implementation to allow providing those using 119 with any required equipment upgrades prior to the cutoff. Someday, who knows how far in the future, but someday, they'll do this for all SD customers, and they gotta start somewhere


----------



## HoTat2

It's steerable, and as you say probably it and it's companion there in the photo could be reassigned if DIRECTV chose to leave 119.

Though the station at present is Ku only at the moment.

See the recent image of the ECUF;

http://goo.gl/maps/K2jks

The one with the green arrow is the new one.

Compare it with the older photo I posted a long while back in this thread here;

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/170004-directv-satellite-discussion-d14-up-next/?p=2953920


----------



## slice1900

Yeah, that's a big dish all right! I assume the large size is to focus it as small as possible? I wonder how much would have to be changed on a dish like that to alter the frequency it is using for its uplink?


----------



## Diana C

The feedhorn (and the electronics that drive it) governs the frequency band. The higher the frequency (and therefore the shorter the wavelength) the more gain you get from a dish of a given size. So, the physical dish can be reused for different frequencies, but all the electronics would be different.


----------



## slice1900

Going back to the discussions we've had about reception of BSS/RDBS, I was wondering: do we have any reason to assume the LNB that's part of a SWM LNB is identical to a KaKu LNB?

If the current KaKu/legacy LNB is capable of receiving BSS, it must be located above 2150 MHz in the stack plan. If that's true, there should be a 400 MHz wide band of noise present from ~ 2350-2750 MHz on the output of every KaKu LNB from day one. Surely someone would have noticed this by now! For that, as well as other reasons previously discussed, I think it is safe to conclude that the KaKu LNB has no BSS support.

That doesn't, however, mean the SWM LNB doesn't. It was introduced several years later, and would provide very little evidence if it does have BSS reception built in. The only way to tell would be the presence of a third DRO (LO) and the 99 and 103 feedhorns would have a slightly larger opening than on the KaKu LNB. Since the output is going directly into a SWM, there would have been no worry about equipment that's not compatible with the frequency range or number of outputs as there may be for the KaKu LNB's replacement (i.e. that will/must use either higher frequencies, six outputs, or ~ 50 MHz spacing between bands to add BSS to the stack plan)

Having BSS capability in the SWM LNB would be a major help for Directv as far as reducing home visits for people who needed to receive the content it may provide. I don't suppose any installers out there have a dead SWM and non-SWM LNB they can pop the covers off to compare feedhorn openings and maybe check out the electronics inside?


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Going back to the discussions we've had about reception of BSS/RDBS, I was wondering: do we have any reason to assume the LNB that's part of a SWM LNB is identical to a KaKu LNB?
> 
> If the current KaKu/legacy LNB is capable of receiving BSS, it must be located above 2150 MHz in the stack plan. If that's true, there should be a 400 MHz wide band of noise present from ~ 2350-2750 MHz on the output of every KaKu LNB from day one. Surely someone would have noticed this by now! For that, as well as other reasons previously discussed, I think it is safe to conclude that the KaKu LNB has no BSS support.
> 
> That doesn't, however, mean the SWM LNB doesn't. It was introduced several years later, and would provide very little evidence if it does have BSS reception built in. The only way to tell would be the presence of a third DRO (LO) and the 99 and 103 feedhorns would have a slightly larger opening than on the KaKu LNB. Since the output is going directly into a SWM, there would have been no worry about equipment that's not compatible with the frequency range or number of outputs as there may be for the KaKu LNB's replacement (i.e. that will/must use either higher frequencies, six outputs, or ~ 50 MHz spacing between bands to add BSS to the stack plan)
> 
> Having BSS capability in the SWM LNB would be a major help for Directv as far as reducing home visits for people who needed to receive the content it may provide. I don't suppose any installers out there have a dead SWM and non-SWM LNB they can pop the covers off to compare feedhorn openings and maybe check out the electronics inside?


Could be;

But just hard to believe that if the SWiM LNBFs had RDBS capability built in, a major manufacturer of LNBFs for DIRECTV like WNC would not mention it in their specification listings for them like here;

http://www.wnc.com.tw//index.php?action=pro_detail&top_id=28&scid=29&tid=43&lid=43&id=222 and here;

http://www.wnc.com.tw//index.php?action=pro_detail&top_id=28&scid=29&tid=43&lid=43&id=220

No mention on RDBS capability listed anywhere. ...


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Could be;
> 
> But just hard to believe that if the SWiM LNBFs had RDBS capability built in, a major manufacturer of LNBFs for DIRECTV like WNC would not mention it in their specification listings for them like here;
> 
> http://www.wnc.com.tw//index.php?action=pro_detail&top_id=28&scid=29&tid=43&lid=43&id=222 and here;
> 
> http://www.wnc.com.tw//index.php?action=pro_detail&top_id=28&scid=29&tid=43&lid=43&id=220
> 
> No mention on RDBS capability listed anywhere. ...


You may be right, but on the other hand that spec lists output IF frequencies, which the SWM LNB doesn't output on the wire, and isn't likely to use at all even internally. If it outputs stacked frequencies they'd have to be immediately unstacked, as the input to the analog SWM splits out each 500 MHz wide band separately and uses LOs to shift them all to the same/similar (unspecified) frequency range prior to input to the "selection" stage. i.e. 12 separate inputs to the selector, or up to 16 if it had BSS capability. This would not only add unnecessary complexity/cost, it conflicts with Directv's obvious desire to reduce the number of LOs used in a LNB as much as possible, as demonstrated by multiple patents describing ways to reduce their number. DROs are quite cheap, maybe they may wish to reduce their number as a source of noise? Perhaps VOS can comment to that?

There's another reason I suspect this could possibly be the case that I didn't mention. There's a Directv patent that details the KaKu legacy LNB, describing use of two LOs sharing among all the 99/101/103/110/119 inputs (not really fitting the "not obvious" criteria, it merely "splits" the output of each LO, but it is no secret our patent system is broken) This is highly likely to be the design of the KaKu LNB, since everything fits perfectly with what we know. There is no mention of BSS frequencies anywhere in there. It also shows only 2 LOs, a third would be required for BSS (the BSS frequencies are filtered out after applying the Ka LO, as required to avoid BSS frequencies overlapping with Ka lo)

There's a second patent from Entropic that describes using a _single_ LO to take the satellite inputs from 99/101/103 and output each 500 MHz band on a separate output in the range between 250 and 900 MHz or so. This is what the input of a SWM would desire, and would be useless as a standalone LNB due to the unstacked output. It uses multiple stages dividing the LO output to accomplish this, and provides some examples. One such example uses BSS frequencies. This is more recently filed, so wouldn't be a description of the current SWM, but wouldn't be a DSWM LNB either as a DSWM wants inputs at near baseband frequency (~50 - 550 MHz) Regardless of how applicable it may be, it got me thinking about how the limitations that would apply to the current KaKu supporting BSS wouldn't apply to the current SWM LNB, which at least allows for the possibility, even though I couldn't find a "smoking gun".

The information on WNC's site looks like it was copied from the SL3 and SL5 information, or it would have specified the SWM output range instead of the stacked range. Besides, if the SWM LNB is capable of receiving BSS, the specs on that page are 100% accurate until the day Directv starts broadcasting BSS and updates receiver firmware/guide info to select channels from it 

Like I said, just throwing the possibility out there, I don't have any evidence. It sure would be handy for Directv if they wanted to use BSS for something that wasn't a narrow market, as only a small percentage of the Slimlines out there would need to be touched, versus all of them if the SWM LNB doesn't support BSS.


----------



## thelucky1

Is there an official date for launch yet?


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## P Smith

not yet


----------



## georule

satlaunch.net are claiming 2Q. Whether their source is more informed than a dart or Ouija board, I cannot say. Their 2014 schedule page was last updated 12/16, but I don't know when the D14 entry was last updated.


----------



## P Smith

still estimated launch time, not exactly the day


----------



## harsh

thelucky1 said:


> Is there an official date for launch yet?


It seems unlikely that the status would go from No Earlier Than Q2 2014 to a date certain.

Arianespace announced today that they're planning to launch up to 12 of 14 "launch opportunities" in 2014 beating their 2012 record by two launches (there were eight in 2013).

http://www.arianespace.com/news-feature-story/2014/1-7-2014-press-conference.asp

All this and their first launch of the year is still a month away.

There is some language in the press release that suggests that not all the booked satellites will be ready and that's why the disparity exists between the opportunities and the plans.


----------



## georule

Ah. I was looking at Sixto's locked D14 thread, which still says late 2013/early 2014. I wouldn't generally consider April-June "early", but YMMV.


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> *It seems unlikely that the status would go from No Earlier Than Q2 2014 to a date certain.*
> 
> Arianespace announced today that they're planning to launch up to 12 of 14 "launch opportunities" in 2014 beating their 2012 record by two launches (there were eight in 2013).
> 
> http://www.arianespace.com/news-feature-story/2014/1-7-2014-press-conference.asp
> 
> All this and their first launch of the year is still a month away.
> 
> There is some language in the press release that suggests that not all the booked satellites will be ready and that's why the disparity exists between the opportunities and the plans.


They have to assign a launch date at some point. If there is no further update until they do, then your supposition is incorrect.


----------



## harsh

studechip said:


> They have to assign a launch date at some point.


This is pretty much a given


> If there is no further update until they do, then your supposition is incorrect.


This is certainly not a given. What we do know is that any kind of launch would be No Earlier Than Q2 and that's a ways off yet. One would reasonably expect that there will be an update when a month is picked and then at least one update when a date certain is chosen. I expect that there will be more than three updates before the bird flies.

We'll also get a opportunity to find out if the foot-dragging in the past has been Boeing's fault or should have been attributed to DIRECTV. SSL has had a pretty remarkable delivery record up to now.


----------



## harsh

georule said:


> Ah. I was looking at Sixto's locked D14 thread, which still says late 2013/early 2014. I wouldn't generally consider April-June "early", but YMMV.


You should NOT ignore the NET part of the forecast. It could just as easily end up being Q3.


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> This is pretty much a given
> This is certainly not a given. What we do know is that any kind of launch would be No Earlier Than Q2 and that's a ways off yet. One would reasonably expect that there will be an update when a month is picked and then at least one update when a date certain is chosen. I expect that there will be more than three updates before the bird flies.
> 
> We'll also get a opportunity to find out if the foot-dragging in the past has been Boeing's fault or should have been attributed to DIRECTV. SSL has had a pretty remarkable delivery record up to now.


There seems to be a distance between what you think is reasonable and what most people think is reasonable, regarding Directv.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> *We'll also get a opportunity to find out if the foot-dragging in the past *has been Boeing's fault or should have been attributed to DIRECTV. SSL has had a pretty remarkable delivery record up to now.


You're clearly not any kind of engineer; project milestones are aspirational in nature and every single person who has ever designed anything that actually got built/went into production/or (ahem) launched into space knows that for a fact. Your characterization is absurd.


----------



## harsh

studechip said:


> There seems to be a distance between what you think is reasonable and what most people think is reasonable, regarding Directv.


Probably depends on the flavor of Kool Aide you drink (along with how much weight you put on past performance).


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> You're clearly not any kind of engineer; project milestones are aspirational in nature and every single person who has ever designed anything that actually got built/went into production/or (ahem) launched into space knows that for a fact. Your characterization is absurd.


Not all projections are overly ambitious. SS/L beat several goal dates in years past and proudly let everyone know.

The position that goals cannot be met is apologist or defeatist. Meeting goals is relatively important in such a team effort as launching a satellite into space and you don't have to have been amongst the overhead or on the front lines of an aerospace company to gather that. Failure isn't necessarily a collective or systematic effort (unless one is in politics).


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> Probably depends on the flavor of Kool Aide you drink (along with how much weight you put on past performance).


I don't drink the Directv Kool Aide, a fact I have pointed out to you many times, and you have ignored many times. That has nothing to do with the question at hand, your disconnect from reality regarding Directv. As you did here, you often respond to a question without answering it.


----------



## harsh

studechip said:


> I don't drink the Directv Kool Aide, a fact I have pointed out to you many times, and you have ignored many times.


Practice speak much louder than policy.

I'm citing projections of those that have established themselves in such things (Salo in this case) along with corporate press releases. You seem to be offering that my position is necessarily divergent from "what most people think" and is therefore incredible.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

It's reassuring that information regarding DirecTV isn't always limited to Press Releases.

There's always a lot more going on just what's included in that limited channel of information.


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> Practice speak much louder than policy.
> 
> I'm citing projections of those that have established themselves in such things (Salo in this case) along with corporate press releases. You seem to be offering that my position is necessarily divergent from "what most people think" and is therefore incredible.


When "what most people think" is based on their own experience and not, as in your case, a non subscriber, an opinion gleaned from an unknown and likely unreliable source, yes your statements are as you say, incredible.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

So coming back on topic...

D14 is coming up, and will be a strategic piece of the active satellite inventory. Looking forward to the launch.


----------



## Sixto

And probably where 4K will be.


----------



## P Smith

any FCC doc what is revealing D14 freq&pol plan ?


----------



## Sixto

nope


----------



## HoTat2

Sixto said:


> nope


Huh ... 

I thought everyone had D14's FCC tech. documents long downloaded by now as they were released back in 2012;

Well ... anyhow;


----------



## Sixto

hi. he was asking for 4k info in the doc. it won't be in there.

it could have been mentioned in a narrative but that was a while ago, and plans evolve.


----------



## HoTat2

Sixto said:


> hi. he was asking for 4k info in the doc. it won't be in there.
> 
> it could have been mentioned in a narrative but that was a while ago, and plans evolve.


OK, if that's it;

I read P. Smith's post as he was just asking for FCC documentation of D14's frequency and polarization plan to which it appeared you said there was none which is what confused me.


----------



## slice1900

I think I remember seeing something in a narrative for one of Directv's new satellites that mentioned the ability to use additional spectrum would help aid future technologies like 4K, but there wouldn't be anything specific tying them to using a specific satellite or band for 4K.

As Sixto says, plans evolve so what they might have said two years ago about how they planned to deploy 4K may be different by the time the first broadcasts are delivered to customers.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Keep it civil. Discuss the topic and not each other. Keep up the personal comments and I'll close this thread.

:backtotop:

Mike


----------



## studechip

slice1900 said:


> I think I remember seeing something in a narrative for one of Directv's new satellites that mentioned the ability to use additional spectrum would help aid future technologies like 4K, but there wouldn't be anything specific tying them to using a specific satellite or band for 4K.
> 
> As Sixto says, plans evolve so what they might have said two years ago about how they planned to deploy 4K may be different by the time the first broadcasts are delivered to customers. If they had specified in a document that, for instance, they planned to use RDBS for 4K but ended up delivering it on Ka, we'd be treated to harsh trying to imply that it should be grounds for the FCC to pull their RDBS licenses


From what I am hearing, 4K is already in testing. That means the current infrastructure can handle it.


----------



## HoTat2

Whatever satellite or band DIRECTV ultimately decide upon to use for 4K, I can't see any other than they'll have to make it fit in either a 24 or 36 MHz bandwidth transponder since that's all what's available for the birds at 99-119 WL, current and future.


----------



## LameLefty

studechip said:


> From what I am hearing, 4K is already in testing. That means the current infrastructure can handle it.


It's just a bit stream in a particular format. One or even a couple of test channels is one thing; several channels or more (assuming there's ever content for it; remember, 3D was "the next big thing" a couple years ago) is something else.


----------



## inkahauts

I expect up to five Ppv channels for 4k. That assumes a genie can do 4k out.


----------



## inkahauts

I expect up to five Ppv channels for 4k. That assumes a genie can do 4k out.


----------



## studechip

LameLefty said:


> It's just a bit stream in a particular format. One or even a couple of test channels is one thing; several channels or more (assuming there's ever content for it; remember, 3D was "the next big thing" a couple years ago) is something else.


Just a bitstream? I heard it was a full video display. My point was that the current satellites can carry a 4K signal. There was some doubt about it.


----------



## Sixto

LameLefty said:


> It's just a bit stream in a particular format. One or even a couple of test channels is one thing; several channels or more (assuming there's ever content for it; remember, 3D was "the next big thing" a couple years ago) is something else.


Exactly.

My point above was just that D14 will give them lots of additional bandwidth to be creative with 4K, and it will happen.


----------



## slice1900

studechip said:


> From what I am hearing, 4K is already in testing. That means the current infrastructure can handle it.


If it is in testing, even if the testing doesn't include new receivers/DVRs, that doesn't mean those receivers will support it when it is rolled out to the world.

Even their latest hardware, the HR44, has only HDMI 1.4, which is only capable of outputting 4K at 30fps. HDMI 2.0 is required for 60fps. 4K will also use HEVC encoding, and HEVC decoders have only recently become available and the first generation won't be cheap or run cool. I highly doubt the HR44 has a HEVC decoder.

They certainly could test it using HDMI 1.4 capable hardware and MPEG4 encoding, but aside from perhaps a limited initial deployment similar to their first generation HD that used MPEG2, neither HDMI 1.4 nor MPEG4 would be a part of their 4K rollout.

I'd expect a HR54 (or whatever they will call it, maybe calling it UR54 makes more sense...) along with new models of client, receiver and/or DVR with HDMI 2.0 and HEVC capability when they announce 4K. There are so few 4K TVs in customer hands, almost no 4K content, and no one else is doing 4K so there's little point in rushing a half ass MPEG4 based solution on the market and then making people trade out their equipment a short time later as happened with the H10/HR10. Unless they think being able to claim they were the first provider with 4K is worth something, I guess.


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> Huh ...
> 
> I thought everyone had D14's FCC tech. documents long downloaded by now as they were released back in 2012;
> 
> Well ... anyhow;


Thank you.

Expected to see something like the page from D11 papers ....


----------



## cypherx

slice1900 said:


> If it is in testing, even if the testing doesn't include new receivers/DVRs, that doesn't mean those receivers will support it when it is rolled out to the world.
> 
> Even their latest hardware, the HR44, has only HDMI 1.4, which is only capable of outputting 4K at 30fps. HDMI 2.0 is required for 60fps. 4K will also use HEVC encoding, and HEVC decoders have only recently become available and the first generation won't be cheap or run cool. I highly doubt the HR44 has a HEVC decoder.
> 
> They certainly could test it using HDMI 1.4 capable hardware and MPEG4 encoding, but aside from perhaps a limited initial deployment similar to their first generation HD that used MPEG2, neither HDMI 1.4 nor MPEG4 would be a part of their 4K rollout.
> 
> I'd expect a HR54 (or whatever they will call it, maybe calling it UR54 makes more sense...) along with new models of client, receiver and/or DVR with HDMI 2.0 and HEVC capability when they announce 4K. There are so few 4K TVs in customer hands, almost no 4K content, and no one else is doing 4K so there's little point in rushing a half ass MPEG4 based solution on the market and then making people trade out their equipment a short time later as happened with the H10/HR10. Unless they think being able to claim they were the first provider with 4K is worth something, I guess.


At the least the genies can pass the HEVC bitstream to RVU 2.0 clients in the new Samsung 4k TV's where they will be decoded there.

But yeah for the transmission, bits are bits. Doesn't matter if it's cable QAM or IP over DOCSIS, Ethernet, satellite, or which transponder on satellite, it's just data.


----------



## harsh

studechip said:


> When "what most people think" is based on their own experience and not, as in your case, a non subscriber, an opinion gleaned from an unknown and likely unreliable source, yes your statements are as you say, incredible.


What innate knowledge does being a DIRECTV subscriber endow one with with respect to launches of DIRECTV satellites.


----------



## harsh

cypherx said:


> At the least the genies can pass the HEVC bitstream to RVU 2.0 clients in the new Samsung 4k TV's where they will be decoded there.


Then the question becomes whether or not there is the network bandwidth to support it.

There's multiple steps to get from programmer's uplink to your home display and the weakest link ultimately (and decisively) determines what can (or cannot) be done.

If, as is claimed, HEVC doubles the compression ratio of AVC, there's still double the bandwidth requirement.

I'm dubious that real-time HEVC encoding at that level is our near future.


----------



## P Smith

that it would be easy to imaging new PPV 4K channel(s) or FVOD [forwarded VOD, stored onto HDD during night/idle hours] are coming


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Then the question becomes whether or not there is the network bandwidth to support it.There's multiple steps to get from programmer's uplink to your home display and the weakest link ultimately (and decisively) determines what can (or cannot) be done.If, as is claimed, HEVC doubles the compression ratio of AVC, there's still double the bandwidth requirement.I'm dubious that real-time HEVC encoding at that level is our near future.


Worse case, the 4k data rate with HEVC encoding will have a ~40Mbit/sec data rate. Well within the capacity of any network except for 10BaseT and 802.11b wireless (might be pushing it for 802.11g nodes far from the AP). Certainly MOCA, 100BaseT, 1000BaseT and 802.11a/c/n can handle it.

Realtime encoding is definitely possible....it is just a matter of processing power, and therefore money.


----------



## P Smith

using "special" (eg long GOPs etc) *sat* technics of compression video, one linear 4K channel would fit into one Ka tpn's mux or using FVOD/IP push to any tpn


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Then the question becomes whether or not there is the network bandwidth to support it.
> 
> There's multiple steps to get from programmer's uplink to your home display and the weakest link ultimately (and decisively) determines what can (or cannot) be done.
> 
> If, as is claimed, HEVC doubles the compression ratio of AVC, there's still double the bandwidth requirement.
> 
> I'm dubious that real-time HEVC encoding at that level is our near future.


As Diana pointed out, the network is just fine. Gigabit ethernet is super cheap, wireless supporting hundreds of megabits is reasonably priced (though harder for a home user to install properly so not a very good solution for streaming video, be it HEVC or MPEG4 encoded) and MoCA's 170 Mbps top rate has plenty of headroom. Directv can always update to MoCA 2.0, which doubles the bandwidth and makes up for the doubling imposed by HEVC.

HEVC encoding is totally irrelevant to what you were responding to. Encoding happens at Directv (or before they receive the content) not in the customer's home. It is totally irrelevant to RVU.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> using "special" (eg long GOPs etc) *sat* technics of compression video, one linear 4K channel would fit into one Ka tpn's mux or using FVOD/IP push to any tpn


I think it wouldn't be any problem to fit two very high quality 60 fps 4K channels in a Ka tpn. The specs I've seen for HEVC encoders are all around a 15 Mbps average bit rate.

They might prefer however to put a single high quality 4K channel in with some less important HD channels, so they can allow the 4K channel to demand quite a bit higher instantaneous peak rate, at the momentary expense of some less watched HD channels.


----------



## Diana C

Mixing differently encoded video (MPEG 4 and HEVC) is problematic. The statmux would have to understand both bit streams and be able to provide feedback to both compression engines to keep the aggregate data rate under control. It may not be impossible, but I don't see such a system being built. AFAIK, no one ever built a MPEG 2/MPEG 4 hybrid statmux, so a MPEG4/HEVC one is not too likely.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> that it would be easy to imaging new PPV 4K channel(s) or FVOD [forwarded VOD, stored onto HDD during night/idle hours] are coming





P Smith said:


> using "special" (eg long GOPs etc) *sat* technics of compression video, one linear 4K channel would fit into one Ka tpn's mux or using FVOD/IP push to any tpn


You mean in the above comments using the current MPEG-4/AVC for 4K?

Since HEVC isn't anywhere near ready yet.


----------



## egakagoc2xi

DuTGGFTYrtrffg


----------



## HoTat2

egakagoc2xi said:


> DuTGGFTYrtrffg




Pardon my lack of knowledge of internet jargon, if that is what this is.

But, what does this mean egakagoc2xi?


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> You mean in the above comments using the current MPEG-4/AVC for 4K?
> 
> Since HEVC isn't anywhere near ready yet.


yeah... H.264 if tell you precisely... H.265 is new compression algo standard aka HEVC


----------



## egakagoc2xi

HoTat2 said:


> Pardon my lack of knowledge of internet jargon, if that is what this is.
> 
> But, what does this mean egakagoc2xi?


Sorry, it was my two year old son who took the iPad.

About the nick is to lame to let you guys know.


----------



## RAD

DuTGGFTYrtrffg



egakagoc2xi said:


> Sorry, it was my two year old son who took the iPad.
> 
> About the nick is to lame to let you guys know.


Actually what was one of the better posts then I've seen around here :hurah:


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> As Diana pointed out, the network is just fine. Gigabit ethernet is super cheap, wireless supporting hundreds of megabits is reasonably priced (though harder for a home user to install properly so not a very good solution for streaming video, be it HEVC or MPEG4 encoded) and MoCA's 170 Mbps top rate has plenty of headroom.


Most DIRECTV installers aren't licensed for CAT5 so Gigabit would have to be left to someone else. Any technology that is based on RF is subject to interference and other bad things that may prevent the user from getting the full measure of theoretical throughput.


> Directv can always update to MoCA 2.0, which doubles the bandwidth and makes up for the doubling imposed by HEVC.


Will the typical DBS coax network (including splitters and BSFs) support support MoCA 2.0? That MoCA 2.0 adds to the MoCA 1.1 frequencies used will add another level of complication when it comes to serving both older and newer equipment from the same server. It is notable that the frequencies in the sub-GHz range didn't change with the introduction of MoCA 2.0 so unless they do something quite magical, bonded MoCA 2.0 may not be possible with the DBS compatible versions.

http://www.mocalliance.org/news/pr_100615_MoCA_Announces_MoCA_2.0.php

Finally, as Wi-fi spreads and people start adding proprietary systems using the same frequencies (like the wireless Genie), the Wi-fi spectrum is likely to get jammed in more and more situations.


> HEVC encoding is totally irrelevant to what you were responding to. Encoding happens at Directv (or before they receive the content) not in the customer's home. It is totally irrelevant to RVU.


The question is bandwidth for the content as opposed to the RUI. There's little point in doing UHD RVU if there's not enough local bandwidth to stream the content. My point was that real time encoding probably isn't as efficient as encoding that can take its sweet time so it is conceivable that the 2:1 ratio will be a distant goal in terms of real time compression. This would take up more satellite bandwidth as well as local bandwidth.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> Mixing differently encoded video (MPEG 4 and HEVC) is problematic.


By the same token, mixing pre-compressed video of a particular format with on-the-fly compressed video of that same form may also be complicated.

This is part of my real time compression of UHD argument.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> The specs I've seen for HEVC encoders are all around a 15 Mbps average bit rate.


The specifications for DIRECTV HD (AVC encoded) are around 7Mbps, but VOS has documented instantaneous rates as high as triple that.

It is imperative to consider whether the quoted rates are for real-time or more intensive (much slower than real time) compression.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> Worse case, the 4k data rate with HEVC encoding will have a ~40Mbit/sec data rate. Well within the capacity of any network except for 10BaseT and 802.11b wireless (might be pushing it for 802.11g nodes far from the AP). Certainly MOCA, 100BaseT, 1000BaseT and 802.11a/c/n can handle it.


You seem to be assuming that the network in question might well be dedicated to this single load. Get some other traffic on there and things will likely change. Half duplex performance goes down rapidly with multiple streams of traffic.


----------



## inkahauts

Vos found those rates in mpeg2 ota. Never seen anyone see 21 on a sat fee from DIRECTV for anything. 

I've started to wonder if the three streams maybe isn't a tech limit but a future limit for UHD.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> You seem to be assuming that the network in question might well be dedicated to this single load. Get some other traffic on there and things will likely change. Half duplex performance goes down rapidly with multiple streams of traffic.


DirecTV installed systems (which, as you are often quick to point out, do not use Ethernet) run on a dedicated coaxial network, with at least enough bandwidth to handle a UHD stream along with at least 4 normal HD streams simultaneously. As I said, the ONLY home LAN configurations that would be bandwidth constrained are old 10Mbit Ethernet and 802.11b wireless. But these wouldn't work very well for regular HD either.

As far as "realtime" versus "take your sweet time" compression, let me just point out that MPEG4 AVC originally needed a minimum of two passes to compress video significantly more than was possible with MPEG2. If HEVC realtime compression can't get a UHD bitstream down to around 20mbit/sec then UHD will only be used for off-line content like movies and other pre-recorded content.

Keep in mind that DirecTV and Dish had to invest in MPEG4 compression equipment only because most sources were being delivered in MPEG2, since that was the (ATSC) broadcast standard. If UHD ever breaks out of BluRay or on-demand content then the content originators (HBO, Showtime, etc.) will have to compress UHD down to fit on a satellite transponder themselves. It therefore very likely that should linear UHD ever become a reality it will already be compressed using HEVC by the time it arrives at the cable and satellite operators' facilities.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Will the typical DBS coax network (including splitters and BSFs) support support MoCA 2.0? That MoCA 2.0 adds to the MoCA 1.1 frequencies used will add another level of complication when it comes to serving both older and newer equipment from the same server. It is notable that the frequencies in the sub-GHz range didn't change with the introduction of MoCA 2.0 so unless they do something quite magical, bonded MoCA 2.0 may not be possible with the DBS compatible versions.


Your argument doesn't even make sense, as usual. First you try to imply that existing splitters and BSFs won't support MoCA 2.0. Then you go on to say that MoCA 2.0 uses the same frequency range as MoCA 1.1. You're wrong, as usual. MoCA doubles the frequency range used. Partly for the bandwidth increase (>400 Mbps in a 16 node network versus only 140 Mbps on a 16 node MoCA 1.1 network, with some help from more complex modulation) and also to allow MoCA 2.0 to simultaneously operate over the same coax network as MoCA 1.1. 400 Mbps is enough for the worst case of the MoCA 2.0 maximum of 16 nodes, all serving 4K streams.

Bonded MoCA 2.0 (which would double speed again to >800 Mbps) is simply not necessary, but it works just fine in MoCA 2.0 for DBS since the E band has double the bandwidth range (300 MHz versus 150 MHz) As for your objection that splitters and BSFs won't be compatible with MoCA 2.0, the former is laughable, and the latter would only apply if for some reason Directv designed the BSF to block only the MoCA 1.1 frequencies. It is probably more of a 'gross' block than that, likely using the same filtering used on the SAT output of a typical diplexer.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> Vos found those rates in mpeg2 ota. Never seen anyone see 21 on a sat fee from DIRECTV for anything. I've started to wonder if the three streams maybe isn't a tech limit but a future limit for UHD.


How could he find 21 Mbps in OTA when ATSC is capable of carrying only 19 Mbps plus change (minus error correction, framing, etc.)


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> The specifications for DIRECTV HD (AVC encoded) are around 7Mbps, but VOS has documented instantaneous rates as high as triple that.
> 
> It is imperative to consider whether the quoted rates are for real-time or more intensive (much slower than real time) compression.


The 15 Mbps was for a hardware encoder intended for broadcast use. I assume that's real time because otherwise there's no reason to use an expensive and less flexible hardware encoder.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Vos found those rates in mpeg2 ota. Never seen anyone see 21 on a sat fee from DIRECTV for anything.


Here's a post where VOS gets 21+Mbps for a satellite feed of his local 720p PBS station:

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/187069-ktla-5-los-angeles-and-dvr-disc-usage/?p=2775885


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Your argument doesn't even make sense, as usual. First you try to imply that existing splitters and BSFs won't support MoCA 2.0. Then you go on to say that MoCA 2.0 uses the same frequency range as MoCA 1.1. You're wrong, as usual. MoCA doubles the frequency range used. Bonded MoCA 2.0 (which would double speed again to >800 Mbps) is simply not necessary, but it works just fine in MoCA 2.0 for DBS since the E band has double the bandwidth range (300 MHz versus 150 MHz)


Band E is not capable of supporting the MoCA 2 bitrates if DECA is already there. E band is only 200MHz and DECA burns half of that with its 100MHz band. Assuming DECA remains to serve existing equipment, MoCA 2.0 will need F Band (675-850 center frequency). I'm pretty sure your assertion that bonding isn't needed is a pretty wild guess at this point.


> As for your objection that splitters and BSFs won't be compatible with MoCA 2.0, the former is laughable, and the latter would only apply if for some reason Directv designed the BSF to block only the MoCA 1.1 frequencies. It is probably more of a 'gross' block than that, likely using the same filtering used on the SAT output of a typical diplexer.


Its only laughable if you don't understand resonant circuit quality (Q). Diplexers work at the spectrum level but BSFs work in narrow bands so its not really fair to lump them together.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Band E is not capable of supporting the MoCA 2 bitrates if DECA is already there. E band is only 200MHz and DECA burns half of that with its 100MHz band. Assuming DECA remains to serve existing equipment, MoCA 2.0 will need F Band (675-850 center frequency). I'm pretty sure your assertion that bonding isn't needed is a pretty wild guess at this point.


If you want to continue this conversation elsewhere, you can start a new thread, we're polluting the D14 thread with a lot of irrelevant stuff. I think at this point I've come to the conclusion others already have, that you're not worth replying to because you just like to argue and find nonexistent problems with everything based on incorrect information or stuff you just made up.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Band E is not capable of supporting the MoCA 2 bitrates if DECA is already there. E band is only 200MHz and DECA burns half of that with its 100MHz band. Assuming DECA remains to serve existing equipment, MoCA 2.0 will need F Band (675-850 center frequency). I'm pretty sure your assertion that bonding isn't needed is a pretty wild guess at this point.


Which would be interesting, were it relevant. However, since the current implementation of MOCA 1.1 by DirecTV already has adequate bandwidth, who cares?


----------



## P Smith

MOCA talkers ? could you please _move_ your posts irrelevant here to a thread with a relevant topic


----------



## slice1900

Replying from the DSWM13 speculation thread, since this is more appropriate here given the D14's use of RDBS...



P Smith said:


> well, thinking of RDBS as new approach of delivering sat signal, my thoughts was it would be marked differently to show new range ... perhaps is not ...


But it isn't a new approach, it is delivered in exactly the same manner as Ku, Ka lo or Ka hi. It is merely a fourth frequency range being used in addition to the three we currently have. They could have called it Ka C or Ka extra lo and it would work the same. It acquired the name RDBS since the frequency range has previously been used for uplinks, and its use now is the "reverse" of how it had been used before.

I would expect a LNB that receives from 99 / 103 / 103 that is current known as SL3/SL3S would continue to be numerically identified as a "3" if it adds reception of RDBS.


----------



## P Smith

we should see it then, no more speculation


----------



## shyvoodoo

Im sorry if the question has been answer on previous pages but do we have a launch date for the D14 yet??


----------



## P Smith

sorry - no sorry; please read a few pages back, the q posted a few times last month


----------



## inkahauts

No we don't have a specific date yet.


----------



## peds48

inkahauts said:


> No we don't have a specific date yet.


you just killed the excitement of the OP having to read 60 pages to find out.... :rotfl:


----------



## HarleyD

P Smith said:


> sorry - no sorry; please read a few pages back, the q posted a few times last month


And it will be reposted periodically since obviously the answer will change at some point.


----------



## HarleyD

Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but I would expect to hear an announcement for at least one more bird being contracted by DirecTV (D16?) before year's end.

I'm not an expert on satellite technology but between the lead time from contract to the completion of IOT taken together with the projected EOL of some of the existing fleet I would be led to believe that this process needs to be started sooner than later.

Unless of course D14&15 represent enough additional capacity that these two birds can expand existing capabilites AND replace one or two of the aging satellites currently in use. Again, I'm not expert enough in the technology to analyze the type and number of transponders and know what that means in terms of the capacity that can be supported.

It just seems to me that some turnover is to be expected in the not too distant future and history indicates that the replacement process needs to get a move on.

Now everyone can tell me why I'm wrong. :smoking:


----------



## P Smith

HarleyD said:


> And it will be reposted periodically since obviously the answer will change at some point.


if you're interesting in such type of topics, you should know - Mods changing its name when we're getting a factual date


----------



## HoTat2

HarleyD said:


> Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but I would expect to hear an announcement for at least one more bird being contracted by DirecTV (D16?) before year's end.
> 
> I'm not an expert on satellite technology but between the lead time from contract to the completion of IOT taken together with the projected EOL of some of the existing fleet I would be led to believe that this process needs to be started sooner than later.
> 
> Unless of course D14&15 represent enough additional capacity that these two birds can expand existing capabilites AND replace one or two of the aging satellites currently in use. Again, I'm not expert enough in the technology to analyze the type and number of transponders and know what that means in terms of the capacity that can be supported.
> 
> It just seems to me that some turnover is to be expected in the not too distant future and history indicates that the replacement process needs to get a move on.
> 
> Now everyone can tell me why I'm wrong. :smoking:


The thing is, expertise in the commercial communications satellite field notwithstanding, even an expert is sill largely limited to speculation on such matters because like you, they too are essentially on the outside looking in and trying to predict.

Unless you work for the branch of DIRECTV which is privy to the studies on the present status of their satellite fleet and future planning which would be corporate classified of course, there's no way to really know for sure until it actually appears in the FCC filings or mentioned at an investors conference or something.

But in the meantime discussions of such guesswork is nevertheless still interesting and fun. :grin:


----------



## LameLefty

HoTat2 said:


> Unless you work for the branch of DIRECTV which is privy to the studies on the present status of their satellite fleet and future planning which would be corporate classified of course, there's no way to really know for sure until it actually appears in the FCC filings or mentioned at an investors conference or something.


A year or two ago, Directv included fleet-life estimates in their Investor Day presentations. I posted about it in this very thread months ago and shared some of the concerns HarleyD has. Well, "concern" may be too strong a word - "interest," perhaps, sums up my feelings better. If not this year, then next certainly I expect to hear some information regarding the future of the older Ku satellites as well as possibly the ones doing Ka backhauls.

By contrast, the most recent Investor Day presentation did not include such information so far as I noticed.


----------



## inkahauts

Isn't predicting the life if a sat always a bit of a no in target as well? Kind if like my car that tells me when I fill it up I have a range of 200 miles but that's because I've been driving on city streets and 30 minutes after being on a freeway it'll say 400 miles instead?

I have been wondering if d15 isn't going to be headed to 101 if d14 is successfully launched.


----------



## slice1900

LameLefty, is this the Investor Day graphic you were talking about?

D4S looks to be the only one that will run out of fuel before 2020. Maybe inkahauts is right and D15 will go to 101, but if not it appears they still have time to build and launch another satellite for 101 before D4S must be retired. According to Gary's spreadsheet, it looks to be sharing spot beam duty with D9S. Is there any way to know how much of that load it is actually carrying? If it is doing little or nothing now, would that potentially extend its life so it can remain on backup duty longer?

Without knowing how far beyond 2020 the fuel bars for SW1, SW2 and D8 go, and what else may have happened to them that could end their service life before the fuel runs out, we don't know whether 101 or 103 would be considered the most "in need".

The big unknown is what Directv's plans for 110 and 119 are. If the satellites serving them last beyond 2020, is that "good enough" and they won't be replaced? Dish uses those slots more heavily, maybe Directv could make a deal with Dish for a no-cost lease of capacity to serve 110 & 119, in exchange for slowly giving up those slots to Dish as Directv phases out MPEG2. That would be a win for both companies, Dish gets more capacity in the future, and Directv avoids the expense of having to replace the satellites at 110 and 119.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> The big unknown is what Directv's plans for 110 and 119 are. If the satellites serving them last beyond 2020, is that "good enough" and they won't be replaced? Dish uses those slots more heavily, maybe Directv could make a deal with Dish for a no-cost lease of capacity to serve 110 & 119, in exchange for slowly giving up those slots to Dish as Directv phases out MPEG2. That would be a win for both companies, Dish gets more capacity in the future, and Directv avoids the expense of having to replace the satellites at 110 and 119.


I can see a deal for 110 ... three transponders is not a lot of space and the cost of maintaining that slot may not be worth the trouble to DirecTV ... but the 11 transponders is a lot of space. I don't see DirecTV giving that up. Especially to a competitor.

DirecTV could lease transponders from DISH to operate their three transponders. The deal SkyAngel had with DISH allowed DISH to use six of SkyAngel's licensed transponders for DISH programming in exchange for uplinking two transponders for SkyAngel. (With other facets to the deal.) Eventually SkyAngel moved to IPTV and transferred their 8 licenses to DISH. DISH's 110 ConUS beam covers all of the US, Hawaii and Puerto Rico so it would be a good transponder to rent. DISH may appreciate the cash for leasing 110 more than the space ... although space for another 27 HD channels would not be bad.


----------



## inkahauts

I don't see any renting of space between the two companies Myself. I could see a trade if DIRECTV could swap their three 110 spots for three that dish has at 119 or maybe 101 99 or 103 if dish even has anything there that they could and would trade.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> I don't see any renting of space between the two companies Myself. I could see a trade if DIRECTV could swap their three 110 spots for three that dish has at 119 or maybe 101 99 or 103 if dish even has anything there that they could and would trade.


DISH doesn't have anything at the three locations you mention ... and trading three at 119 for 110 would not help DISH, so there is no incentive.


----------



## inkahauts

Which is why I think nothing will ever really get traded with dish to be honest.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> Which is why I think nothing will ever really get traded with dish to be honest.


DISH uses nearly all of their 21 transponders for uplinks to 119 ... so giving up any three would mean they would have to give up the spotbeams uplinked on those three transponders. Giving up three 119 transponders would not make their next 119 satellite cheaper (unlike DirecTV who would not need a satellite at all at 110). I believe there were discussions in the past about swapping transponders so DirecTV could leave 110 - but DISH is probably better off just waiting until DirecTV is willing to abandon the transponders completely. Which won't be soon.


----------



## LameLefty

slice1900 said:


> LameLefty, is this the Investor Day graphic you were talking about?
> 
> D4S looks to be the only one that will run out of fuel before 2020.


I've posted about this same thing before, but fuel life is one thing, and is pretty much a solid estimate based on known use rate and fuel capacity. Another thing, and one much more important in the grand scheme of things, is design life. A satellite with 10 more years' worth of useful propellant is utterly worthless if it's solar arrays degrade to the point that they aren't able to keep the batteries charged; it's also worthless if the satellite control processors fail, or the sun trackers (attitude control) die, or if internal heaters fail ...

There are THOUSANDS of components to a spacecraft and many of them are pretty darn important.  In fact, given the net cost of mass-to-GSO, ALL of them are pretty darn important. When key components fail, fuel remaining doesn't matter much anymore. That's why that deign lifetime line is on the chart; the design life is based on statistical analysis of all the key components, redundancies, etc. While real-life performance for many individual parts might exceed design lifetime, COUNTING on them to continue doing so year after year is a dangerous and ultimately foolish bet.

That, and the several year lead time necessary to procure, prepare and begin operating a new satellite is why I still expect to begin hearing noises about replacements for the older satellites any time now, really.


----------



## Gary Toma

_......D4S looks to be the only one that will run out of fuel before 2020. Maybe inkahauts is right and D15 will go to 101, but if not it appears they still have time to build and launch another satellite for 101 before D4S must be retired. According to Gary's spreadsheet, it looks to be sharing spot beam duty with D9S. Is there any way to know how much of that load it is actually carrying? If it is doing little or nothing now, would that potentially extend its life so it can remain on backup duty longer?_

We have 6 TPNs of Spot Beams provided by D4S or D9S. Within those specific TPNs, we cannot distinguish which channels originate from D4S or from D9S. We do know that D9S is providing 10 TPNs of CONUS beams.

Looking at the 'Channel Count' tab of the TPN Map, we know D9S provides 156 CONUS channels and that D4S and D9S together provide 520 LIL SD channels.


----------



## longrider

LameLafty, I have a somewhat off the wall question. I know when a satellite reaches EOL for whatever reason it is pushed out to a graveyard orbit where it cant do any damage. I also know (or would certainly hope) that they would never let the propellant get low enough to prevent said parking. However, what are the odds of a mechanical or control failure that would keep ground control from moving it? I realize how vast space is and the odds of even a drifting sat hitting anything is rather slim, but still....


----------



## inkahauts

Actually haven't they change the rules were now you have to actually de orbit and destroy it by you having it reenter Earth's atmosphere?


----------



## LameLefty

longrider said:


> LameLafty, I have a somewhat off the wall question. I know when a satellite reaches EOL for whatever reason it is pushed out to a graveyard orbit where it cant do any damage. I also know (or would certainly hope) that they would never let the propellant get low enough to prevent said parking. However, what are the odds of a mechanical or control failure that would keep ground control from moving it? I realize how vast space is and the odds of even a drifting sat hitting anything is rather slim, but still....


The full answer to this is pretty complicated and very conditional but the short version is "not very likely." Here's why: most space vehicle failures are not totally out of the blue and unexpected. Usually there is some kind of indicator: telemetry may show temperatures rising in a part of the vehicle bus over the course of days or weeks. A valve may take a few milliseconds longer than usual to cycle. Solar array motor currents might start trending up indicating a problem with a gear drive or a motor ... whatever. Part of space vehicle operations is to keep track of a things that are "out of family" and unexpected, looking for trends or data spikes that indicate incipient problems. When those are spotted they can be dealt with, and if one is serious enough to implicate spacecraft end-of-life, it's dealt with very quickly. If Directv or any other going business spotted a problem like that with a vehicle in their core slots, they'd take care of moving it out ASAP, if only to prevent it from drifting around and causing potential problems for other satellites co-located at the same slot (within a few tens of miles or less).



inkahauts said:


> Actually haven't they change the rules were now you have to actually de orbit and destroy it by you having it reenter Earth's atmosphere?


Nope. Low-orbit and medium-orbit satellites must generally be placed into orbits that will decay in <25 years, GSO satellites are raised about 100 km or more into graveyard orbits that will last thousands of years. All inoperative satellites must be safed - pressurants vented or otherwise guaranteed through statistical analysis to be exceedingly unlikely to rupture, power systems turned off, batteries discharged. These latter steps are meant to reduce the risk of the satellite breaking up and cluttering orbital space with even more debris than is already up there. At GSO altiudes, anything up there will be up there a VERY long time.


----------



## bobnielsen

longrider said:


> LameLafty, I have a somewhat off the wall question. I know when a satellite reaches EOL for whatever reason it is pushed out to a graveyard orbit where it cant do any damage. I also know (or would certainly hope) that they would never let the propellant get low enough to prevent said parking. However, what are the odds of a mechanical or control failure that would keep ground control from moving it? I realize how vast space is and the odds of even a drifting sat hitting anything is rather slim, but still....


I recall that Ian Fleming had a method of removing satellites in orbit (as demonstrated in _You Only LIve Twice_) :sure:


----------



## P Smith

bobnielsen said:


> I recall that Ian Fleming had a method of removing satellites in orbit (as demonstrated in _You Only LIve Twice_) :sure:


LEO, not GSO


----------



## bobnielsen

P Smith said:


> LEO, not GSO


True, but the early plans for the space shuttle included the ability to retrieve satellites in a geosynchronous orbit. When I was working at Hughes in the 1960s, we were asked what tests we might run if NASA was able to retrieve one of the birds.

I'm not sure just when that idea was dropped, but it was probably not long after it was proposed.


----------



## P Smith

SS would reach GSO ? I recall it could go up to 500 km or so.


----------



## slice1900

The original plan called for a separate Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (sort of a tugboat for space) that would ferry satellites to/from the shuttle as far as GSO. It was cancelled in the 80s when NASA no longer got everything in their budget they asked for.

I don't think the shuttle itself was ever planned to reach GSO.


----------



## bobnielsen

bobnielsen said:


> True, but the early plans for the space shuttle included the ability to retrieve satellites in a geosynchronous orbit. When I was working at Hughes in the 1960s, we were asked what tests we might run if NASA was able to retrieve one of the birds.
> 
> I'm not sure just when that idea was dropped, but it was probably not long after it was proposed.





slice1900 said:


> The original plan called for a separate Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (sort of a tugboat for space) that would ferry satellites to/from the shuttle as far as GSO. It was cancelled in the 80s when NASA no longer got everything in their budget they asked for.
> 
> I don't think the shuttle itself was ever planned to reach GSO.


The discussions I was aware of occurred probably around 1964, when the shuttle design parameters were still quite fluid. It was sort of a "what if" conversation.

Two satellites, Palapa B2 and Westar 6, were retrieved by the space shuttle from a lower orbit after a rocket motor failure caused them to not reach geosynchronous orbit. Both were refurbished and later launched successfully.


----------



## slice1900

bobnielsen said:


> The discussions I was aware of occurred probably around 1964, when the shuttle design parameters were still quite fluid. It was sort of a "what if" conversation.


I totally missed that your first post stated "1960s" - I read it as the 1980s. But looking at Wikipedia, the Shuttle concept was discussed and concepts developed even before Apollo. Wow, I had no idea it went back that far!


----------



## Diana C

The idea of GSO retrieval was dropped pretty quickly when some "back of napkin" calculations of the cost were done. By the end of the program each Shuttle mission was costing about $400 million. If they had designed the shuttle to reach geosynchronous altitudes that could easily have been 5 to 10 times as expensive.


----------



## Sixto

1/27/2014: DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC ("DIRECTV") hereby applies for a seven-year extension,
through April 4, 2021, of the license for its DIRECTV-7S spacecraft, call sign S2455.

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1032703


----------



## HoTat2

Sixto said:


> 1/27/2014: DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC ("DIRECTV") hereby applies for a seven-year extension,
> through April 4, 2021, of the license for its DIRECTV-7S spacecraft, call sign S2455.
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1032703


Thanks for posting this;

I actually saw this yesterday, but wasn't sure if there was enough interest to post it since it involves no technical changes to the satellite's current operations.


----------



## Sixto

Yep, agree, but with the recent discussion of satellite life figured might as well mention.


----------



## HoTat2

Sixto said:


> Yep, agree, but with the recent discussion of satellite life figured might as well mention.


Though out of purely academic interest, I was hoping perhaps DIRECTV would give some brief technical overview of D7S in the Narrative document there and in the process by happenstance make some mention of the meaning for the letters "B," "C," and "R" used for three spotbeam sets D7S and it's brother D9S at 101, spotbeams are divided into.

Been trying for over a year or so off and on to make sense of those category labels for their spots as to what they refer to.


----------



## slice1900

I ran across this while searching for info related to Directv's RDBS plans. Some interesting quotes from Philip Goswitz, Directv's SVP of Space & Communications/R&D, which I've included below. There have been some discussions in this thread about the new Ka hi and RDBS bandwidth on D14, and 4K has been suggested as one possible use. These quotes indicate 4K will go on Ku, not Ka or RDBS.

The first quote suggests "Ku band transmissions could end" [obviously meaning for SD] and the second quote that Ku will be converted from SD to 4K. Using Ku for 4K makes sense, as 4K would be a premiere product and making it more resistant to rain fade than HD could possibly help sell it (I could see dbstalk'ers upgrading to 4K capable receivers even if they didn't have a 4K TV to gain that benefit)

The statement about freeing up 1 GHz of Ku bandwidth is interesting in light of the fact that includes only the bandwidth from 101, though maybe he was just rounding it off so it probably doesn't indicate anything about plans for 110/119.

Ceasing SD broadcasts by 2016 seems optimistic, though it wasn't given as a hard date. However, if they plan to use Ku for 4K broadcasts, they'd have to start pushing off more SD channels to make room if it is more successful than some of us are assuming it will be. I wonder if the migration would happen piece by piece, via putting on notices on the screen for less popular channels that "your equipment will no longer be able to receive this channel after xx/xx unless you upgrade your equipment, call Directv and ask for your free upgrade". The upgrades would be more manageable if you saved locals and the top 100 most watched channels for last - after which more people would have upgraded voluntarily anyway. Doing it this way would free up Ku transponders over time to slowly roll out 4K as content becomes available.

The comment about using RDBS for international made me wonder. Does that mean in addition to CONUS or _instead of_ CONUS? We still have no idea what, if anything, RDBS will be used for in the US, and if so, whether it will be used from 99, 103, or both.

First quote from: http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=598966990
Second quote from: http://advanced-television.com/2012/10/01/37560/



> First, our subscribers are migrating away from Ku-band, and upgrading themselves to Ka-band and its HDTV services. In four or five years, our Ku-band [transmissions] could end. We are also developing the so-called Reverse Band for DBS services, and these are on our Road Map for future international services.





> He explained that DirecTV expected to convert its current standard-definition Ku-band signals to U-HDTV by 2016.
> 
> He added that by 2016 all of its standard-def transmissions would have converted to HDTV, and using its local-into-local Ka-Band capacity. He said with standard-definition broadcasting ceasing the broadcaster would have 1 gigahertz of freed-up satellite spectrum available for use by U-HDTV, to a potential 20 million homes.
> 
> We are going to want to have it in place and we will use Ku-band for [Ultra-HD].


----------



## P Smith

looks like international chnls will be on main cluster and 95W will be freed and installation of the special dish for International packages will end


----------



## Diana C

HoTat2 said:


> Though out of purely academic interest, I was hoping perhaps DIRECTV would give some brief technical overview of D7S in the Narrative document there and in the process by happenstance make some mention of the meaning for the letters "B," "C," and "R" used for three spotbeam sets D7S and it's brother D9S at 101, spotbeams are divided into.
> 
> Been trying for over a year or so off and on to make sense of those category labels for their spots as to what they refer to.


Might it be the uplink location? B=Boise, C=Castle Rock. I don't know what R might indicate...maybe Marina Del *R*ey?


----------



## HoTat2

Diana C said:


> Might it be the uplink location? B=Boise, C=Castle Rock. I don't know what R might indicate...maybe Marina Del *R*ey?


Nah ...

There are four uplink sites for D7S;

The LA Broadcast Center feeds 11 tps. (7 CONUS, 4 spot)
Castle Rock, CO. feeds 11 tps. (All spots)
Oakdale, MN. feeds 11 tps. ( All spots)
East Coast Uplink Facility, Win., VA. feeds 11 tps. (All spots)

Total - 44 tps. into 30 beams.

D9S (like D4S) has two uplink sites.

The LABC feeds 32 tps. (10 CONUS, 22 spot)
CRBC feeds 22 tps. (All spots)

Total - 54 tps. into 27 beams.

Don't see anyway to get the letters B, C, and R out of these.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> looks like international chnls will be on main cluster and 95W will be freed and installation of the special dish for International packages will end


I think a lot of us have been expecting that. It can't be cheap to install that second dish and external SWM for those customers, so once they have the capacity to replicate those channels on 99/103 (using Ka or RDBS) they'd save millions of dollars a year.


----------



## P Smith

are they still installing that big international DTV dish with two legacy LNBFs:101W and 95W ? what switch is using there ? 2x1 22 kHz ?


----------



## slice1900

You need that special 36x24 dish, and it is my understanding its output plugs into the flex port of a SWM8 (or older multiswitch if it is added to an existing legacy install)

Since it also receives 101, I suppose it could be used standalone for a SD only customer (if they didn't need 119) so it wouldn't have really cost Directv much extra in the past when the HD penetration was smaller.


----------



## Diana C

HoTat2 said:


> Nah ...
> 
> There are four uplink sites for D7S;
> 
> The LA Broadcast Center feeds 11 tps. (7 CONUS, 4 spot)
> Castle Rock, CO. feeds 11 tps. (All spots)
> Oakdale, MN. feeds 11 tps. ( All spots)
> East Coast Uplink Facility, Win., VA. feeds 11 tps. (All spots)
> 
> Total - 44 tps. into 30 beams.
> 
> D9S (like D4S) has two uplink sites.
> 
> The LABC feeds 32 tps. (10 CONUS, 22 spot)
> CRBC feeds 22 tps. (All spots)
> 
> Total - 54 tps. into 27 beams.
> 
> Don't see anyway to get the letters B, C, and R out of these.


Well, stretching the concept...

B=L.A. *B*roadcast Center
C=*C*astle Rock
R=*R*egional uplink centers (VA and MN)

If I'm right, there would be more Rs than Cs and more Cs than Bs.

It probably has nothing to do with it, but it's fun to speculate. ;-)


----------



## harsh

On Tuesday Salo updated the launch window for DIRECTV 14 to NET May.

It appears that the other NET Q2 and June Ariane 5 launches were also pushed out by one month (give or take).

DIRECTV 15 is still sitting at EOY 2014.

REMEMEBER: NET = NO EARLIER THAN


----------



## Curtis0620

Ariane 5 launches are scheduled for 2/6 and 3/7 and I think there is one other ahead of Directv 14. So that would be April and Directv 14 would be in May.

http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html

Hopefully none of them will be further delayed.


----------



## harsh

Curtis0620 said:


> Hopefully none of them will be further delayed.


They're shooting for 12 launches this year but they haven't done a launch yet in 2014 so it is anyone's guess how they're going to get there.

There's no sign of an April launch at this time and the third and fourth listed Ariane 5 launches (DIRECTV 14 and Measat 3b/Jabiru 2) share the same window of NET May so do you suppose it may come down to which payload is ready first?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6114.msg1154691#msg1154691


----------



## P Smith

launch time is subject of many things... it would be easy to play roulette and win money than predict D14's launch day ... continue speculate !


----------



## slice1900

They seem to be narrowing it down, since it was previously NET Q2 and is now NET May. May is the best case, so maybe it slips to June or even into July but barring some unexpected mishap it sounds like it will be in orbit less than six months from today.

Once it launches, how long does it take for it to makes its way to its designed slot at 99*, and how long is testing likely to take before it begins to serve channels? Is the testing typically done on station or do they do some preliminary testing at a different orbital location before moving it into place?


----------



## inkahauts

That is dependent on many things. I'd say between two and six months before we see channels from it on our receivers.


----------



## Sixto

D10Launched: 7/7/2007
LIVE: 9/26/2007
About a week delay due to spot beam and authorization issues
Thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/85005-d10-satellite-tech-thread-hd-testing-schedule-press-releases-location
[*]D11
Launched: 3/19/2008
LIVE: 7/31/2008
About a 6-8 week delay due to BSS testing. D11 got to it's first test location 5/25/2008
Thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/115478-sixto-report-d11-status-in-operation-july-31-2008/#entry1465084
[*]D12
Launched: 12/28/2009
LIVE: 5/19/2010
Delayed due to D10 amelioration
Thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/155388-sixtoreport-d12-satellite-info-in-post1-live/#entry2143169


----------



## James Long

Perfect examples of "two to six months".


----------



## HarleyD

And don't forget that one of those birds (D11) was launched by Sea Launch form an equatorial position so it arrived in GSO more readily than the Baikonur lauches. Otherwise it would have taken more than the 4 months it took with the delays, etc. 

This one won't have that advantage in launch placement either.


----------



## LameLefty

HarleyD said:


> This one won't have that advantage in launch placement either.


Well, French Guiana isn't very far off the equator (5.3º N or so); there won't be the Byzantine series of drawn-out orbital operations to reach GSO like there are for a Proton launch from Baikonur.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> They seem to be narrowing it down, since it was previously NET Q2 and is now NET May.


NET doesn't get narrower by shifting from Q2 to May as it is open on the upper end. The effective change is that April now off the table.

Another way of looking at it is the projection went from NET April to NET May.


----------



## P Smith

that would be 'the sky is falling' moment for some of us !


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> You need that special 36x24 dish, and it is my understanding its output plugs into the flex port of a SWM8 (or older multiswitch if it is added to an existing legacy install)
> 
> Since it also receives 101, I suppose it could be used standalone for a SD only customer (if they didn't need 119) so it wouldn't have really cost Directv much extra in the past when the HD penetration was smaller.


I did measure it today (brand new, from a box) it's 35x20. The tech did try to use WB68 (no SWM ! Both DSS and FSS LNBFs are legacy type, straight from the package), no go. D12 (SD) and H23 (HD) both doesn't have signals from 95W tpns. It could works but will not pass IV/QC if you will choose "round 3LNB+95" (no 110/119W).
What is works for both IRDs, it's my old 22 kHz switch from old Hughes DTV international dishes (almost 20 years old !) and by a selection "round + 95W". He will check (if DTV will find ) 3x4 switch tomorrow.

DUH !


----------



## Gary Toma

Diana C said:


> Well, stretching the concept...
> 
> B=L.A. *B*roadcast Center
> C=*C*astle Rock
> R=*R*egional uplink centers (VA and MN)
> 
> If I'm right, there would be more Rs than Cs and more Cs than Bs.
> 
> It probably has nothing to do with it, but it's fun to speculate. ;-)


In a side conversation with spear61, (our Beam Footprint Master), his response on this R,C,B, question was, "....I suspect they are related to identifying the antenna used for transmission. These satellites have several transmission antennas , each antenna with different shaped beams for various transponders."


----------



## harsh

Salo updated the schedule today.

DIRECTV 14 is now slated for NET August along with four other launches.

DIRECTV 15 has been modified to EOY 2014 "(or 2015)".

Looks like Arianespace isn't going to meet their 12 launch goal.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Salo updated the schedule today.
> 
> DIRECTV 14 is now slated for NET August along with four other launches.
> 
> DIRECTV 15 has been modified to EOY 2014 "(or 2015)".
> 
> Looks like Arianespace isn't going to meet their 12 launch goal.


Now all the way into August?

I'm beginning to wonder if Ariannespace was really the best choice by DIRECTV here as it seems they are simply overbooked.

I mean, I realize DIRECTV likes to spread their contracts for services around this way, but I'm not sure AS was the best decision at this point.

Perhaps they've just go too much on their plate right now for an industry where you certainly can't rush things, least you end up with some type of disastrous launch failure.


----------



## P Smith

could be a cause by willing to pay more by other customer what force to push back other launches


----------



## georule

And now six launches scheduled as possible for August? That seems really unlikely to work out that way. More shuffling to come, it seems.


----------



## LameLefty

HoTat2 said:


> I mean, I realize DIRECTV likes to spread their contracts for services around this way, but I'm not sure AS was the best decision at this point.


Arianespace, ILS and SeaLaunch have all launched satellites for Directv in the past; however, of the three, ILS (Proton) and SeaLaunch have both suffered catastrophic/loss-of-mission failures in the last few years, and SeaLaunch itself went through bankruptcy. I'm not sure it's even still a going concern. The choice of anyone BUT Arianespace would have been seriously questioned by the Board of Directors.

There are two - possibly three - other competitors for commercial payloads: ULA (utilizing a Delta IV or Atlas V), SpaceX (using Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy) and maybe China's Long March series of rockets. I don't believe the current Long March versions are capable enough, and I don't know whether ITAR technology transfer regulations would impact their selection anyway. Of the others, ULA is widely-considered too expensive for most commercial payloads (which is why there have been only a couple of commercial Atlas V launches) and SpaceX doesn't yet have a booster powerful enough; the current-generation of heavy Directv payloads are too big for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy hasn't even been seen outside of PowerPoints and web-renderings.

So really, Arianespace was almost the ONLY choice Directv could've made. But seriously, it's not like there's any urgent "gotta have 'em NOW!" reasons to get D14 and 15 up and running as soon as possible.


----------



## inkahauts

And we have seen these timelines get pushed in all sorts of directions before so you never know.


----------



## P Smith

inkahauts said:


> And we have seen these timelines get pushed in *all sorts of directions* before so you never know.


would you enlighten us with a list of reasons to push launch date backward and forward ?


----------



## Diana C

LameLefty said:


> Arianespace, ILS and SeaLaunch have all launched satellites for Directv in the past; however, of the three, ILS (Proton) and SeaLaunch have both suffered catastrophic/loss-of-mission failures in the last few years, and SeaLaunch itself went through bankruptcy. I'm not sure it's even still a going concern. The choice of anyone BUT Arianespace would have been seriously questioned by the Board of Directors.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So really, Arianespace was almost the ONLY choice Directv could've made. But seriously, it's not like there's any urgent "gotta have 'em NOW!" reasons to get D14 and 15 up and running as soon as possible.


And of course everyone else launching communications satellites are doing the same analysis. Until ILS gets a few successful Proton launches under their belt, and/or the attempts to get SeaLaunch up and running again succeed, Arianespace is pretty much the only game in town.

If you look at the history of Arianespace I don't think they have ever gotten more than 9 launches off in a year, and usually it is more like 6. Turning the pad around in less than a month is tough to do. Bottom line, the queue is only going to get longer.


----------



## HarleyD

LameLefty said:


> So really, Arianespace was almost the ONLY choice Directv could've made. But seriously, it's not like there's any urgent "gotta have 'em NOW!" reasons to get D14 and 15 up and running as soon as possible.


I was thinking about this last night. It isn't as though there are dozens of channels all queued and ready to light up when these birds deploy.

Success is head and shoulders more important than making a date that was projected four years ago. Whether it is SSL, DirecTV or Arianespace that is pulling back on the stick, I'm confident that the reasons are legitimate and don't represent an inadequacy in the satellites, their payloads or the launch apparatus.

In spite of some veiled inferences by some (or one) of the posters on this thread that this reflects poorly, I am not troubled by this beyond my mild disappointment at having to wait a few more months. That is only because I like to follow these things from launch, to GSO arrival, through IOT and finally going live. It's fun. Not critical. A distraction from the mundane. I've been looking forward to it (and D15) since it was announced, and will continue to do so through August...and beyond if circumstances dictate it.


----------



## LameLefty

Diana C said:


> And of course everyone else launching communications satellites are doing the same analysis. Until ILS gets a few successful Proton launches under their belt, and/or the attempts to get SeaLaunch up and running again succeed, *Arianespace is pretty much the only game in town.*


Exactly.

Maybe in the next year or two, Proton will have reeled off a comfortingly-long string of successes again; maybe SeaLaunch will reorganize in some form and get the Zenit 3SL back into the the heavy GSO game; maybe SpaceX will have at least shown off Falcon Heavy hardware and have a launch date penciled in for their demo flight. Once any of those happen, there will be some relief on the world launch markets. But none of that has happened yet.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> And we have seen these timelines get pushed in all sorts of directions before so you never know.


Can you cite an instance where the launch date was pushed up considerably? I can't think of an example where this has happened with DIRECTV.

I seem to recall where DIRECTV traded their initial launch date for a the subsequent launch date not too far back but I have a sneaking suspicion that they weren't ready anyway.


----------



## harsh

georule said:


> And now six launches scheduled as possible for August? That seems really unlikely to work out that way. More shuffling to come, it seems.


There needs to be at least four weeks between launches. DO NOT ignore the "NET" portion of the forecast.

It does seem odd that they're not showing a clear ordering of the launches.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> There needs to be at least four weeks between launches. DO NOT ignore the "NET" portion of the forecast.
> 
> It does seem odd that they're not showing a clear ordering of the launches.


Just because there has always BEEN four weeks between launches does not indicate that it's a natural law that requires it. Gemini 6A and 7 launched 8 days apart from the same pad once upon a time. It's all about money and manpower. *If Arianespace has a real need *to surge their launch rate to something less than a month, I am certain it could be done for at least a few month period. They're historically well-established, know their people and their procedures and how to do all that's necessary. Heck, SpaceX is brand-new to launching GSO payloads and they managed a month between the launches of SES-8 and Thaicom-6. Roughly 4 weeks between launch campaigns might be optimal in terms of a long-term sustained rate, but to meet short-term demand a quicker turn-around is entirely reasonable for several launches.

They're not showing a clear launch order for a number of reasons, probably, uncertainty about readiness of several of the payloads being chief among them. One of the highest-profile Ariane 5 payloads this year is ATV-5 to the ISS. That payload, in turn, is subject to a lot of different factors relating to ISS operations. There is a master "Visiting Vehicle" schedule that has to be coordinated among all the spacecraft launched to the station: Soyuz, Progress, Dragon, Cygnus, HTV and ATV all have nominal, expected windows of time during which they will be active. A delay or issue with any of them will ripple down and affect them all. Further, the ATV itself requires a lot of on-site processing before launch and takes up a lot of time/effort/money to get ready, probably substantially more than a relatively simple, self-contained payload like a comsat.

The takeaway from this, as anyone who actually understands space engineering and operations, is simple: schedules are subject to change. They usually slip to the right but with enough money changing hands, moving to the left is possible. It's usually not worth it though.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> Can you cite an instance where the launch date was pushed up considerably? I can't think of an example where this has happened with DIRECTV.
> 
> I seem to recall where DIRECTV traded their initial launch date for a the subsequent launch date not too far back *but I have a sneaking suspicion that they weren't ready anyway.*


Based on what, exactly? Do tell.


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> Can you cite an instance where the launch date was pushed up considerably? I can't think of an example where this has happened with DIRECTV.
> 
> I seem to recall where DIRECTV traded their initial launch date for a the subsequent launch date not too far back but I have a sneaking suspicion that they weren't ready anyway.


I am Talking in general. And if they swapped places with someone else for who knows what reason then right there you have an example of someone moving up. Who's to say what happens if someone ahead of ten failed to meet a deadline and they get moved up because of that as well if they are ready. And oh yeah d15 was move up for original expected launch. Granted that was ages ago and was very far out. But still the same idea.


----------



## georule

Sea Launch is still alive and kicking. . . but haven't had a successful launch since late 2012 (they did lose a bird in 2013!), and are scheduled to return to launches this April with EUTELSAT 3B.

But given the time frames D* would have been engaged in scheduling, not really a viable alternative for D14. If Ariane continues to logjam, and SL gets successfully back into space in April, perhaps they'd become a viable "Plan B" for D14 or D15.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> I am Talking in general. And if they swapped places with someone else for who knows what reason then right there you have an example of someone moving up.


I asked for an example, not a hypothetical.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> Based on what, exactly? Do tell.


Just a hunch based on the appearance that the launch dates were typically later than originally announced in presentations and/or initially scheduled (as reported by anik).


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> They're not showing a clear launch order for a number of reasons, probably, uncertainty about readiness of several of the payloads being chief among them.


Looking back to when DIRECTV 14 first got specific on salo's schedule (August 9, 2013) it was windowed for January 15 through March 1st. It was given a 45 day window ahead of one of the satellites (ABS 2) that launched Thursday. Prior to that it had been early 2014 (as was Athena-Fidus that launched Thursday as well).

Now it is vying for a spot in the Summer?

I say this without dragging in justification from oblique references to the early US space exploration program nor other largely unrelated examples that didn't prove quicker than four weeks.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> I asked for an example, not a hypothetical.


You expect others to provide examples, while you provide only "hunches" and hearsay.


----------



## inkahauts

And we all know what I said does happen.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> You expect others to provide examples, while you provide only "hunches" and hearsay.


And as long as I present it as a hunch or a suspicion, that's okay.

When someone claims that it happens all the time, it should be easily supported with examples.


----------



## slice1900

For a brief break from the guesswork as to when D14 will finally launch, I have a question for the satellite experts out there.

Looking at a beam contour map for Directv's CONUS satellites, the highest signal power is provided in Florida, a bit less in the SE, a bit less in the midwest, and the least in the west. The reason is obvious, the more likely a particular area is to be affected by rain fade, the more power that is presented.

How easily/quickly can that be changed? If Directv had minute by minute information about where storms were, either from weather radar or updates on signal quality gathered from the millions of internet connected receivers around the country, could Directv command its satellites to alter their signal contour every few minutes to deliver more signal power to areas that need it? Following the storm's path and slightly in advance of where it is moving with signal power up to the maximum allowed. Or is making these changes a wildly difficult calculation that takes a great deal of planning and testing, making the type of automated signal contour changes I'm suggesting utterly impossible with current technology/procedures?

Obviously for the biggest storms even the maximum power the FCC allows wouldn't be enough, and there are potential objections to how easy it would be to obtain the data about where the power needs to be increased. Ignore those for the moment - they don't matter unless it is possible to change the CONUS beam contours on a nearly real time basis.


----------



## P Smith

they cannot change CONUS coverage, only if they will use complicity of SW-1/2 phase array antennae

as to feedback, yes they have many earth stations what are monitoring RF, BER, etc (not sure if each SB serving, but all major part of US)


----------



## Go Beavs

I'm pretty sure they can adjust the HD spot beam power levels (even those not on the SW sats). I say this because I have seen bluebird weather spot beam strength of less than 100 on my SS screens and I had a solid 100 this weekend during a pretty good snow shower. I'm sure they adjust those because those channels are probably the most frequently watched among subscribers. They don't want extra phone calls.


----------



## HoTat2

Yeah, possibly SB power level control to the same degree for all of one area may be adjusted this way;

But there is no practical way to reform a CONUS beam under some type of adaptive power control to vary levels to some regions and not others that I can see. Perhaps with some phased array antenna systems like on the Spaceways you could do something like this as P. Smith suggests. I don't know.

I mean, for CONUS beams the DVB-S2 standard used by DIRECTV's Ka band signals does have options for things like "Variable Coding and Modulation" (VCM) and "Adaptive Coding and Modulation" (ACM) systems on a packet by packet basis which can vary the signal link robustness of individual packet sub-streams within an aggregate transport stream multiplex to different downlink recipients of those sub-streams to compensate for atmospheric conditions.

But this won't work for broadcast applications of the standard over CONUS beams at least since all recipient subscribers may use all the same packet sub-streams.

Interactive IP type applications can use this type of system, but not broadcast ones and thus use the "Constant Coding and Modulation" (CCM) provision of the standard.


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah, possibly SB power level control to the same degree for all of one area may be adjusted this way;
> 
> But there is no practical way to reform a CONUS beam under some type of adaptive power control to vary levels to some regions and not others that I can see. Perhaps with some phased array antenna systems like on the Spaceways you could do something like this as P. Smith suggests. I don't know.
> 
> I mean, *for CONUS beams the DVB-S2 standard used by DIRECTV's Ka band signals does have options for things like "Variable Coding and Modulation" (VCM) and "Adaptive Coding and Modulation" (ACM) systems on a packet by packet basis which can vary the signal link robustness of individual packet sub-streams within an aggregate transport stream multiplex to different downlink recipients of those sub-streams to compensate for atmospheric conditions.*
> 
> But this won't work for broadcast applications of the standard over CONUS beams at least since all recipient subscribers may use all the same packet sub-streams.
> 
> Interactive IP type applications can use this type of system, but not broadcast ones and thus use the "Constant Coding and Modulation" (CCM) provision of the standard.


DTV does not use VCM/ACM for Ka feeds, they do changing FEC sometimes, but it's very rare, perhaps for very bad seasons. And modulation type: QPSK <-> 8PSK changes happened a few times. Perhaps Gary could step up with digging in his historical data.


----------



## slice1900

OK thanks for the info guys. I wasn't sure how easily or even if the beam could be changed, and it sounds like what I'm hearing is that it is pretty much fixed at launch.

I would be curious to know whether they vary the power level for spot beams if there is weather in the area as Go Beavs suggests. Assuming it is bumped up to the maximum, comparing when signal is lost between the local SB and CONUS would tell how much (or how little) this would benefit even if it had been possible to do for CONUS.

What is the maximum power Directv is allowed to use? I checked the beam footprint library and my SB from D12 gives me 59.5 dbw, and D12 CONUS gives me 54.3 dbw. Despite that difference, I see the same signal quality reported - the extra 5.2 dbw must not actually increase my SNR by anything like 5.2 db. Go Beavs reports seeing 100 on his local SB at times, but apparently I'd need to have the power cranked even higher to reach that level. On the other hand, maybe 59.5 dbw is the highest they ever use, but they're providing me less power right now - comparable to the 54.3 dbw I get from the CONUS beam?

It would be interesting to track my signal for the locals tpn this spring/summer when there's a big storm in my SB footprint that isn't affecting me, to see if they do crank up the power, and then see if there's much difference in the amount/rate of signal drop between my locals tpn and a CONUS tpn when a storm approaches.


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> ..
> It would be *interesting to track my signal* for the locals tpn this spring/summer when there's a big storm in my SB footprint that isn't affecting me, to see if they do crank up the power, and then see if there's much difference in the amount/rate of signal drop between my locals tpn and a CONUS tpn when a storm approaches.


I'm interesting how you suppose to do that ? by looking at TV screen ? then remember, you will see SS=f(CNR).


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> DTV does not use VCM/ACM for Ka feeds, they do changing FEC sometimes, but it's very rare, perhaps for very bad seasons. And modulation type: QPSK <-> 8PSK changes happened a few times.


Have they ever done that on the fly? Or just on unused transponders or adjustments done in the middle of the night when programming can be interrupted?


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> I'm interesting how you suppose to do that ? by looking at TV screen ? then remember, you will see SS=f(CNR).


When I was troubleshooting something odd I noticed a few months ago I wrote a simple script that runs on my wireless router and queries one or more receivers for their current signal strength and logs the reported SS to a file with one update per second. If I had this running as a storm approached and one receiver was tuned to a LiL and another tuned to a CONUS channel on 103ca, I'd get a direct comparison between the two. If my signal suddenly jumped up to 100 with a storm in the area that wasn't affecting me, it would indicate they cranked up the power.

And yes, I realize the number is a measure of CNR/SNR. Its too bad there isn't a way for me to get the actual CNR, but your findings indicate a fairly linear relationship up until the mid 90s where the curve flattens quite a bit and several db of CNR seem to be required to bump from 95 to 100.


----------



## P Smith

then I'll be waiting for your posts with measures during bad weather over your area what covered by separate SB


----------



## P Smith

James Long said:


> Have they ever done that on the fly? Or just on unused transponders or adjustments done in the middle of the night when programming can be interrupted?


unknown to me, as the changes are rare and samples taken once in a week
actually it could be automated (as done for DVB-S NIT monitoring), just need special parsing, SI tables are different in APG universe.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> then I'll be waiting for your posts with measures during bad weather over your area what covered by separate SB


I'll do it in the mid/late spring, when the supercells start rolling across the midwest. Assuming there is a summer this year


----------



## P Smith

some got a nobel for keep it coming warmer


----------



## RAD

On today's financial call White said that the next US satellite goes up later this year, he thought in the fall. If it's going to take that long looks like not a bunch of new HD until 2015, bummer.


----------



## RAD

Looking at Dish's quartly results I noticed this one line:



> DirecTV has obtained FCC authority to provide service to the United States from a Canadian DBS orbital slot, and EchoStar has obtained authority to provide service to the United States from both a Mexican and a Canadian DBS orbital slot.


OK, I knew about Dish and their Canadian and Mexican slots but what slot is DIRECTV using that's Canadian?


----------



## James Long

DirecTV was using 72.5 before ending the lease (EchoStar now leases that slot and subleases to DISH).

DISH uses two Canadian DBS orbital slots, 72.5 and 129. 77 is Mexican. 61.5, 101, 110, 119 are US.


----------



## harsh

DIRECTV is using 95W for their international offerings to North America. I believe that slot is allocated to either Mexico or South America.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> DIRECTV is using 95W for their international offerings to North America. I believe that slot is allocated to either Mexico or South America.


95W is Ku but is not DBS band.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> 95W is Ku but is not DBS band.


Yes, it is the FSS frequencies immediately below (and at lower power than) DBS band.


----------



## James Long

We were talking about DBS slots ...


----------



## RAD

From the recent DIRECTV 10-K



> We have contracted for the construction and launch of two new satellites: D14, which we expect to launch in the fourth quarter of 2014, and D15, which we
> expect to launch in the first half of 2015. D14 and D15 are expected to provide additional HD, replacement and backup capacity


Boy, it's going to be a long year.


----------



## harsh

RAD said:


> Boy, it's going to be a long year.


I think they're being overly optimistic about launching DIRECTV 15 this year. There are eight or nine launches that appear to be ahead of it (the first of which is scheduled for March 21st) and only 10 months left.

Of course launching and going into service are two decidedly different dates as well but being a near equatorial launch should help shorten the span.


----------



## RAD

harsh said:


> I think they're being overly optimistic about launching DIRECTV 15 this year. There are eight or nine launches that appear to be ahead of it (the first of which is scheduled for March 21st) and only 10 months left.
> 
> Of course launching and going into service are two decidedly different dates as well but being a near equatorial launch should help shorten the span.


White said DIRECTV 15 in 2015, not 2014, please reread the statement.


----------



## harsh

RAD said:


> White said DIRECTV 15 in 2015, not 2014, please reread the statement.


I'm speaking of Salo's calendar which still lists DIRECTV as EOY 2014 (or 2015).


----------



## harsh

Salo has updated his calendar to include the information from the investor's presentation (D14 in Q4 2014 and D15 "first half" 2015.

The year's third launch is scheduled for the end of May and the fourth is scheduled for the end of July. That leaves 2-3 dates at the current rate to cover five or so launches.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Salo has updated his calendar to include the information from the investor's presentation (D14 in Q4 2014 and *D14* "first half" 2015.
> 
> The year's third launch is scheduled for the end of May and the fourth is scheduled for the end of July. That leaves 2-3 dates at the current rate to cover five or so launches.


"D15"


----------



## georule

harsh said:


> The year's third launch is scheduled for the end of May and the fourth is scheduled for the end of July.


Hmm? April 3rd, yes?


----------



## PhilS

Look at Directv's 10 K Report dated 2/24/14 under "Investor Relations"

We have contracted for the construction and launch of two new satellites: D14, which we expect to launch in the fourth quarter of 2014, and D15, which we
expect to launch in the first half of 2015. D14 and D15 are expected to provide additional HD, replacement and backup capacity

http://investor.directv.com/financial-information/sec-filings/sec-filings-details/default.aspx?FilingId=9804312


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> "D15"


Fixed!

Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## harsh

georule said:


> Hmm? April 3rd, yes?


April 3rd is a Soyuz rocket. The launch after that is a Vega rocket.

What we're concerned with is the Ariane 5 rocket launches from Kourou ELA-3 as that is what DIRECTV has contracted for.


----------



## HoTat2

Don't know how this got missed;

But for those interested, FCC LOA filing data for the companion satellite IS-31 for the DIRECTV LA service scheduled for launch sometime in the third quarter of 2015 (according to the documentation).

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/attachment_menu.hts?id_app_num=99377&acct=783256&id_form_num=12&filing_key=-248833

Data looks identical to IS-30's.


----------



## harsh

Salo updated his schedule a couple of days ago to assign a flight number (VA221) and a companion satellite for DIRECTV 14. Things may be looking up for a 2014 launch although there is still nothing more specific than Q4 for the date. The important part is that none of the other Q4/EOY candidates appear to have been assigned a flight number.

Apparently GSAT-16 has been getting bounced around and now it is going to be paired with DIRECTV 14. GSAT-16 weighs in at 3,150Kg and DIRECTV 14 is slated to tip the scales at upwards of 6,502Kg so the payload would appear to be quite near the 10,000Kg maximum. I'm not certain whether the faring is included in any of those weights.


----------



## inkahauts

The only person who ever thought anything was looking down was you. So it's hard to say it's now looking up like it was ever in that kind of doubt anyway.


----------



## studechip

inkahauts said:


> The only person who ever thought anything was looking down was you. So it's hard to say it's now looking up like it was ever in that kind of doubt anyway.


Perhaps the fact that the launch date has been moved back several times is a factor?


----------



## damondlt

Chip does have a point.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## studechip

damondlt said:


> Chip does have a point.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


Occasionally.


----------



## inkahauts

studechip said:


> Perhaps the fact that the launch date has been moved back several times is a factor?


Except that it's never even had a launch date. Only a rough time frame that's been altered a bit to latter in the year. He likes to make it sound like it could be another couple years and the world is falling apart. He also makes it sound like we should think something is wrong because it's time frame guestimate had changed.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> Except that it's never even had a launch date. Only a rough time frame that's been altered a bit to latter in the year. He likes to make it sound like it could be another couple years and the world is falling apart. He also makes it sound like we should think something is wrong because it's time frame guestimate had changed.


Perhaps a better guestimate in the beginning would help. Set expectations. A new satellite "sometime in 2014" presented as "a new satellite launched by December 31st, 2014 (maybe)." The overly optimistic who suggested a Spring 2014 launch, or did not refute that time frame may be the ones to blame. Set expectations. Early in 2013 when someone posted Spring 2014 the realists should have said "not spring ... by the end of 2014." Did that happen?

Or did the dates slip back?


----------



## studechip

inkahauts said:


> Except that it's never even had a launch date. Only a rough time frame that's been altered a bit to latter in the year. He likes to make it sound like it could be another couple years and the world is falling apart. He also makes it sound like we should think something is wrong because it's time frame guestimate had changed.


True, it's never had a launch date, but the expected time frame has been moved back several times.


----------



## slice1900

How much do any delays in D14's launch affect customers? I don't think they do all that much. There are some people wishing for a favorite niche channel to be added or added in HD. D14 will make many of them happy. There are about a dozen DMAs comprising less than 1% of the population that either don't have locals or don't have them in HD. D14 will address that, or at least most of it.

However, unless they add 100 new HD channels, there's a ton more bandwidth being added than the above could consume (not even including all that RDBS bandwidth) Some will surely go to 4K, but with no 4K receivers available yet, no 4K content for Directv to offer except a limited PPV menu, and few households with 4K TVs, even if D14 was pushed back into next year it wouldn't matter.

They could increase HD quality, which is always welcome. Perhaps they'll add ESPN3 feeds as alt channels when the new ESPN contract is done. Since starting this summer they'll no longer be doing SD only installs, replicating 95 on 99/103 would mean a single dish for all new installs. Replicating 119 would mean SL3 for all new installs, minimizing LOS issues.

Certain people like to make it sound as if D14 is continually being pushed back, with the not so subtle implication that this is a big problem for Directv. It isn't. There's not nearly the urgency that existed with D10/D11/D12 when there was heavy competition amongst cable and satellite providers to get all the popular channels in HD. D14's changes will be mostly at the margins and behind the scenes, and most customers won't even notice.


----------



## damondlt

I would think most people don't have a clue how satellite TV really works, so most people wouldn't know about or count on a satellite launch anyway.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## studechip

slice, I agree that the average consumer has no clue about satellite launches, and if they do, probably don't care. That's not the point. The time frame for the launch of D14 has been moved back several times. That's all. I don't see it as a big deal. It will be interesting to see how it's utilized. Will there be an increase in bandwidth for each channel? That would be nice! So would a few of the niche channels. There really aren't any I care much about, but I know many posters here have their favorite missing channels.


----------



## James Long

damondlt said:


> I would think most people don't have a clue how satellite TV really works, so most people wouldn't know about or count on a satellite launch anyway.


Most do not know the logistics behind what they want ... they just know what they want. More channels in HD, their local channels in HD. They don't know how DirecTV will provide what they want ... they just want it.

People on our forum generally get more of the logistics. They ask for what they want and someone mentions how DirecTV provides that. Years of waiting for the the next satellite on DBSTalk has explained the purpose behind launches.

All the general public knows is what they believe they are missing ... check any of the newbie questions to see what the general public wants. Delays in getting what they want is what they notice. If they are waiting for new HD channels this will be a bad year for DirecTV ... and while they may be niche channels SOMEONE wants each of the missing channels. And they have just as much right to miss their channels as anyone who already has all they want.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> All the general public knows is what they believe they are missing ... check any of the newbie questions to see what the general public wants. Delays in getting what they want is what they notice. If they are waiting for new HD channels this will be a bad year for DirecTV ... and while they may be niche channels SOMEONE wants each of the missing channels. And they have just as much right to miss their channels as anyone who already has all they want.


I don't disagree, but there is a big difference between the urgency for D10/D11/D12 when Directv was behind some cable companies in HD, and today, where all providers are roughly equal - all are missing some set of niche channels that SOMEONE wants, as you say, but all have a pretty wide selection so people can't find more than a few channels that any one provider lacks.

When D14 is operational, there will STILL be missing channels, due to disagreements over price/terms (like the LA Dodgers channel) or because Directv just doesn't think they will have enough of an audience to bother with. There are a lot of channels out there, no one can carry them all. Even if they could/did without their pricing getting out of line compared to the competition, it probably wouldn't win them any appreciable market share. The days of inducing people to switch by advertising how many HD channels you have are over.

A wider HD channel selection just isn't high on people's priority list these days, because for the most part they feel providers are pretty much equal in that regard. Most people are satisfied with with the selection they get, even those who wish for an additional channel or two. People choose based on price and equipment (i.e. some combination of capacity/reliability/features/performance of set tops) unless there is some missing deal breaker channel. Such deal breakers, like Pac 12 for example, generally have nothing to do with a lack of capacity.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> *... Since starting this summer they'll no longer be doing SD only installs, .... *


Sorry I missed this important bit of news;

When did DIRECTV announce this?


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> I don't disagree, but there is a big difference between the urgency for D10/D11/D12 when Directv was behind some cable companies in HD, ...


That was a bad time ... with DirecTV introducing HD Lite to fit more channels into limited space and taking some channels off the air to cover sports. Fortunately those times are long passed.



slice1900 said:


> People choose based on price and equipment (i.e. some combination of capacity/reliability/features/performance of set tops) unless there is some missing deal breaker channel. Such deal breakers, like Pac 12 for example, generally have nothing to do with a lack of capacity.


Price and equipment are debatable ... there are people who swear by DirecTV equipment and others who swear at it. But the deal breakers open the door to taking a closer look at what else is wrong. ie: DirecTV doesn't have Pac-12? What else is missing? Esquire Network, Reelz Channel, WE, Logo, The Hub, Centric, Fuse or RFD TV may not be deal breakers for you but they have viewers. When people have to ask "what will I give up by going to DirecTV" the best answer is "nothing" ... not "nothing we consider important (which may include your favorite niche channel or sports network)".

Giving up the reputation for "we have it all" and accepting the mantle of "we have it most" gives more room for people to think about another service. Staying ahead is important ... and if that takes additional satellites that makes their launch important.


----------



## studechip

Like I've always said, for me it comes down to programming. What good is better equipment/picture/etc if you can't watch what you want? I'm a Yankee fan, so Dish is out of the question.


----------



## damondlt

James Long said:


> That was a bad time ... with DirecTV introducing HD Lite to fit more channels into limited space and taking some channels off the air to cover sports. Fortunately those times are long passed.
> 
> Price and equipment are debatable ... there are people who swear by DirecTV equipment and others who swear at it. But the deal breakers open the door to taking a closer look at what else is wrong. ie: DirecTV doesn't have Pac-12? What else is missing? Esquire Network, Reelz Channel, WE, Logo, The Hub, Centric, Fuse or RFD TV may not be deal breakers for you but they have viewers.


Directv has these. Just not in HD. But are still available unlike the vast amounts of HD sports MLB and NFL and HD Premiums that dish doesn't carry.
They all have fans too, apparently more, since Directv in the USA alone still has over 6 million more customers.
Let's complain about Directv's line up when they actually have a problem.

You should be more worried about Dish and the multiple channels they don't even carry.
Or one of the largest sports DMA's they just flat out don't serve. 
Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## P Smith

we shouldn't divert the thread to another about PROGRAMMING ! 
:backtotop


----------



## damondlt

Agree, not sure why it's even being brought up in the first place. 

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Except that it's never even had a launch date.


Back on August 9, 2013, DIRECTV 14 had a 45 day launch window for January 15 to March 1.

In November it slid to NET Q2.

In January it went to NET May.

A week later it became NET August.

As of the 2013 financial call on March 20th, that became Q4.

To interpret any of the other changes since last summer as significantly more certain or favorable seems pretty silly.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> I don't disagree, but there is a big difference between the urgency for D10/D11/D12 when Directv was behind some cable companies in HD, and today, where all providers are roughly equal - all are missing some set of niche channels that SOMEONE wants, as you say, but all have a pretty wide selection so people can't find more than a few channels that any one provider lacks.


Since DIRECTV is currently under relatively successful attacks from Comcast, Charter and others about their fall from grace with respect to leadership in sports programming and as their pricing is coming in line with many of the same, I think it is relatively important that they maintain some sort of edge to remain viable going forward.

When you pay niche prices, you may rightly expect niche programming.

That the anticipation thread has found life and quite a bit of the discussion centers around DIRECTV 14 isn't an inexplicable coincidence.


----------



## RAD

While TWC and U-Verse are about the same for programming where DIRECTV wins is the monthly hardware charges.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## harsh

RAD said:


> While TWC and U-Verse are about the same for programming where DIRECTV wins is the monthly hardware charges.


How much is a U-Verse setup with a single HD DVR and Internet?


----------



## dennisj00

harsh said:


> How much is a U-Verse setup with a single HD DVR and Internet?


It really doesn't matter how much it is unless you like crappy HD picture, smaller DVR capacity and one HD stream at a time.


----------



## studechip

dennisj00 said:


> It really doesn't matter how much it is unless you like crappy HD picture, smaller DVR capacity and one HD stream at a time.


Most Uverse areas allow two hd streams.


----------



## dennisj00

studechip said:


> Most Uverse areas allow two hd streams.


More like 'Some'. And the wonderful Win CE on the DVR??!!


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> Giving up the reputation for "we have it all" and accepting the mantle of "we have it most" gives more room for people to think about another service. Staying ahead is important ... and if that takes additional satellites that makes their launch important.


This is a silly argument. There are exactly zero providers that "have it all", and there always will be. You can name a list of channels that Directv is missing. The same could be done for Dish, for FIOS, for Comcast, for Cox, for TWC and on and on. Most likely some of those channels won't be added even after D14 launches because the issue isn't capacity, it is price/terms. Same reason why Dish didn't have ESPNU in HD until recently. They had the capacity to add it long ago, but didn't have the agreements in place. Who knows which of the channels Directv is missing are for reasons like that, rather than lack of bandwidth? Different providers negotiate different deals at different times, so just because one has a channel in HD, or at all, doesn't mean that those who don't have it lack the capacity to add it.

D14 will allow adding many of the missing channels, but they still won't "have it all", even if they end up with a lot of unused bandwidth and decide to crank up the HD quality as a way of making some use of it.


----------



## longrider

I have not seen this mentioned recently but we cant forget that some of the capacity being launched over the next couple years will be needed to replace capacity on satellites reaching EOL. It is not all for new channels by any stretch...


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> Since DIRECTV is currently under relatively successful attacks from Comcast, Charter and others about their fall from grace with respect to leadership in sports programming and as their pricing is coming in line with many of the same, I think it is relatively important that they maintain some sort of edge to remain viable going forward.
> 
> When you pay niche prices, you may rightly expect niche programming.
> 
> That the anticipation thread has found life and quite a bit of the discussion centers around DIRECTV 14 isn't an inexplicable coincidence.


:lol:

Please point to some real source that agrees with your wild conjecture that they have had a fall from grace on sports programming and such.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> You can name a list of channels that Directv is missing.


Yes, I can. And others can come up with a list as well. Even people who are not members of DBSTalk can come up with a list of channels DirecTV doesn't carry or doesn't carry in HD. And while you and others may discard the argument with "nobody has everything" and try to take the topic even further off in the weeds by discussing other providers THIS THREAD is about DirecTV ... and what people expect of DirecTV.

For years DirecTV had and cultivated the reputation if you wanted it they had it. Their advertising pushed that they were the "Best TV". Why even look at another provider? They were able to back up that reputation by having more channels - especially more sports. And if they didn't have it, don't worry - DirecTV will launch a new satellite and have that content as well. Just be patient.

As documented in this thread, the expected launch has slipped back. And that leaves DirecTV with the choice of riding out the year hoping to recover in 2015 or finding other ways to improve. "Best TV" is not stagnant.

Lets see the next satellite launch - and hope the capacity brings content.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Please point to some real source that agrees with your wild conjecture that they have had a fall from grace on sports programming and such.


You can play the "as long as they have NFLST" card or the Yankees card too many times. The NASCAR card went away.

In and around my area it is more about the Portland Trailblazers and the PAC-12 network (University of Oregon Ducks). PAC-12 is carried by everyone BUT DIRECTV and Comcast and Charter both carry the Blazers. All three are running advertising on TV and radio regarding DIRECTV's bygone status as "the sports leader". Other areas have different tastes and I suspect that Philly customers wan't some lovin' and aren't getting it. The CSN Houston thing got some pretty good play in the press recently

The SEC network is also showing some play in advertising as DIRECTV "negotiates".

If they haven't fallen, people are certainly questioning their resolve.


----------



## inkahauts

DIRECTV has never had philly so that's not at all something to hang your hat on. And they haven't had the blazers in years. They also as I recall are missing something in Sacramento area. These few teams don't mean much to their overall offerings, and forget nflst. What about MLB and NHL and nba? Other than dish getting close from what I understand who else even comes close to offering as many games total? 

MLB.com I believe was partly born when it was because most cable companies can not have that many feeds going at once. DIRECTV can usually.

The Dodgers is a channel no one is picking up. Same with Huston. 

And until the sec is missing lets not bother worrying about it, but even if it was, then you'd have an argument for some football fans in a few areas of the south. 

The PAC 12 is a bit of a joke unfortunatly. You can't call that station a sports me a by any strech. Missing it is less important than missing either the Dodgers or Huston. Its more liek missing the west coast feed of a channel we already get the east coast feed for.

Until you can point to someone who has anywhere near as much sports and total games available to everyone this really isn't something anyone can say is the sign that DIRECTV isn't the leader in sports anymore. They still are clearly overall. One or two markets alone doesn't make them or break them. Frankly I've always thought dish was number two overall and they have not had ny sports in years.

And I don't know anyone who's questioning their resolve. They are taking a stand against ridiculous pricing and greed from sports franchises like the Dodgers. I don't know anyone who's upset the Dodgers aren't on their TV screens who know about the reason why they aren't on their TV. Not one. In fact most people are saying, that's fine, I'll watch the Angels and I'll catch the Dodgers in the playoffs if they make it. It's had zero impact on how peope, feel about DIRECTV being better at sports than most from anyone I have talked to about it. And most people don't even know that the pac12 carries games they might watch because they pretty much dont!


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Let's try to get back to topic. We have other threads to discuss programming. 

:backtotop

Mike


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Sorry I missed this important bit of news;
> 
> When did DIRECTV announce this?


I heard it was announced at the Revolution conference a few weeks ago.


----------



## Sixto

Russian Proton-M suffers failure during Ekspress-AM4R launch: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/05/russian-proton-m-launches-with-ekspress-am4r/


----------



## P Smith

probably Proton will be not the vehicle for D14/D15 ...


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> probably Proton will be not the vehicle for D14/D15 ...


Not unless Arianespace either can't fulfill their contracts with DIRECTV or starts launching the Proton-M 

Since both D14 and D15 are contracted to be launched by AS.


----------



## harsh

salo updated his schedule yesterday and it would appear that DIRECTV 14 lost its ride (VA221).

The quickest turnaround in recent history was 35 days but this year's launches are averaging closer to 57 days apart (ranging from 44 to 76).


----------



## alnielsen

I'm wondering if the launch delays are due to some strategies in the talks that leading up to the acquisition of Directv.


----------



## inkahauts

alnielsen said:


> I'm wondering if the launch delays are due to some strategies in the talks that leading up to the acquisition of Directv.


I don't see that as a consideration at all. And I still wouldn't call anything an actual delay. Until they give a specific date for a lunch it's all just a gestinate. Sat launches just aren't a routine thing. This is more like a carpenter building a single piece of customer furniture at a time not a plant tossing out ikea furniture.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> And I still wouldn't call anything an actual delay.


When a satellite goes up 9-12 months after originally planned, it was delayed.


----------



## joed32

I'm glad you were in on the planning so you can keep us informed.


----------



## inkahauts

joed32 said:


> I'm glad you were in on the planning so you can keep us informed.


Thanks couldn't have said it better myself!


----------



## jerrylove56

alnielsen said:


> I'm wondering if the launch delays are due to some strategies in the talks that leading up to the acquisition of Directv.


I was wondering the same. Seems plausible that DTV or its new owner would potentially push back large non-critical acquisitions or costs until after merger/buyouts was complete. Don't know how fund transfers occur in satellite field, but would guess that all funds aren't transferred until bird becomes fully operational in orbit.


----------



## James Long

Here is some information from those involved in the planning.

Space Systems/Loral's announcement (June 2010):
http://sslmda.com/html/satexp/directv14.html

DIRECTV-14 is a powerful, high-capacity spacecraft that will use Ka-band and the new "Reverse" DBS band to expand high definition and other new consumer services. This satellite will be the sixth SS/L-built satellite in DIRECTV's fleet based on the highly reliable 1300 satellite platform. DIRECTV delivers hundreds of channels of crystal-clear digital programming to more than 31 million customers in the U.S. and Latin America with small-diameter dish antennas. This satellite is scheduled for launch in 2014 and will provide service for users across the U.S. (including Hawaii and Alaska) and Puerto Rico.

DirecTV's announcement in 2011:
Arianespace said the satellites will be launched in 2014 from a facility in Kourou, French Guiana. Space Systems Loral is building DirecTV-14, which is the first satellite to be launched under the contract, while the contract for the second satellite hasn't been awarded yet.

Read more: DirecTV to launch up to four new satellites via Arianespace deal - FierceCable http://www.fiercecable.com/story/directv-launch-four-new-satellites-arianespace-deal/2011-09-14#ixzz32f3mTeft

DirecTV's launch authority request filed with the FCC in 2012:
"DIRECTV anticipates that Space Systems/Loral will complete construction of DIRECTV 14 in the fourth quarter of 2013 and that the satellite will be launched by the end of that year or in early 2014."

Would it be sarcastic to point out that the satellite builder, owner, launcher and authorizing agency are involved in the planning?


----------



## James Long

jerrylove56 said:


> I was wondering the same. Seems plausible that DTV or its new owner would potentially push back large non-critical acquisitions or costs until after merger/buyouts was complete. Don't know how fund transfers occur in satellite field, but would guess that all funds aren't transferred until bird becomes fully operational in orbit.


There are commitments involved. SS/L isn't going to want to sit on their costs for an additional year. They need to pay for the parts and labor put in to the satellite. Arianespace has not performed and might be willing to allow DirecTV out of the launch deal (especially if they cannot perform). But buying and launching a satellite is not done by simple agreements that can be easily cancelled.


----------



## slice1900

jerrylove56 said:


> I was wondering the same. Seems plausible that DTV or its new owner would potentially push back large non-critical acquisitions or costs until after merger/buyouts was complete. Don't know how fund transfers occur in satellite field, but would guess that all funds aren't transferred until bird becomes fully operational in orbit.


Directv isn't owned by AT&T until the merger is approved, which may take quite some time. In the meantime, Directv is going to proceed according to their plans and AT&T has _zero_ say over that. These plans have them launching two new satellites, D14 and D15. It isn't clear why AT&T would want to stop the launch, much of the cost isn't the launch, but the construction of the satellites, and that's a sunk cost at this point.

Not to mention that Directv is more valuable with more satellite resources, as it can deliver more channels, be able to offer 4K programming, etc. AT&T clearly realizes the benefit of a wide selection of channels, as from what I understand Uverse offers a wider selection than any other provider except possibly FIOS. It wouldn't make sense that they'd eliminate Directv's ability to match or exceed Uverse's offering to save money by cancelling the launch of an already built satellite.

Despite the trolling of a certain Dish fanboy who likes to rain on Directv's parade every chance he gets, until an actual launch date is set there's not much point in talking about delays. Directv probably wanted/hoped to have D14 launched by now back when the original contract was signed, but judging from NASA's experience with the shuttle, planning a launch schedule years in advance is like predicting the weather years in advance.


----------



## P Smith

I wouldn't discard launching cost easily ... it could be more then $100M, so definitely it reasonable to expect DTV count the money


----------



## slice1900

Sure, but Directv's management did the math and made the decision to go ahead years ago. Being bought out (and not even for sure, as the FCC may not allow it) doesn't change that math, especially now that most of the cost has already been incurred. My understanding is that satellites similar to what Directv is launching cost around a half billion dollars to build, which would be a lot of investment to walk away from to save a "mere" $100 million.

It isn't as if they're in poor financial shape and need to save money, or that saving $100 million now by cancelling the launch (if AT&T can get the deal done before the launch happens) would pay off in the long run when Directv wouldn't be able to add all the channels that Uverse has and couldn't offer 4K. Pretty sure AT&T didn't buy them to freeze them on today's technology forever while the competition moves on, that would be a waste of most of the $50 billion they're paying as the profits Directv is making today would shrink every year as they fell behind.

If Directv's management had reason to believe AT&T might want to stop the launch to save money, they could make non-refundable payment for the launch for D14 (and D15 while they're at it) if they wanted. AT&T couldn't stop them, and I'm sure Ariane would be happy to take Directv's money now. In fact, is it possible Directv has already put some money down for the launch? I don't really know how that works, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if a down payment is required to hold a launch slot or something like that.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> If Directv's management had reason to believe AT&T might want to stop the launch to save money, they could make non-refundable payment for the launch for D14 (and D15 while they're at it) if they wanted. AT&T couldn't stop them, ...


To put it bluntly:
"Additionally, the Merger Agreement provides for customary pre-closing covenants of DIRECTV, including covenants to conduct its business in the ordinary course consistent with past practice and to refrain from taking certain actions without the Company's consent, ..."

If the payment you suggest is not part of "conduct its business in the ordinary course consistent with past practice" DirecTV would NOT be able to take such action. An inconsistent action would be a breach of DirecTV's agreement.

That being said, the normal course of business is to proceed with the launch as if there were no merger pending. If anyone is worrying about D-14 not being launched because of the AT&T / DirecTV merger please set those worries aside.


----------



## studechip

slice1900 said:


> Directv isn't owned by AT&T until the merger is approved, which may take quite some time. In the meantime, Directv is going to proceed according to their plans and AT&T has _zero_ say over that. These plans have them launching two new satellites, D14 and D15. It isn't clear why AT&T would want to stop the launch, much of the cost isn't the launch, but the construction of the satellites, *and that's a sunk cost at this point.*
> 
> Not to mention that Directv is more valuable with more satellite resources, as it can deliver more channels, be able to offer 4K programming, etc. AT&T clearly realizes the benefit of a wide selection of channels, as from what I understand Uverse offers a wider selection than any other provider except possibly FIOS. It wouldn't make sense that they'd eliminate Directv's ability to match or exceed Uverse's offering to save money by cancelling the launch of an already built satellite.
> 
> Despite the trolling of a certain Dish fanboy who likes to rain on Directv's parade every chance he gets, until an actual launch date is set there's not much point in talking about delays. Directv probably wanted/hoped to have D14 launched by now back when the original contract was signed, but judging from NASA's experience with the shuttle, planning a launch schedule years in advance is like predicting the weather years in advance.


Does that mean both D14 and D15 are already built?


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> ...until an actual launch date is set there's not much point in talking about delays.


That is certainly counter to the title purpose of this thread.

What shouldn't play as big a big role is engaging the apologist warp drive in an attempt to explain away business decisions or other unrevealed contributors to delays. Throwing out wild guesses about what is at stake financially or surmising that AT&T must have already infected DIRECTV isn't sound reasoning.

In the end, it usually comes down to either the satellite not being ready (SSL has a record for beating deliveries) or the launch schedule (including issues with launch failures and vehicle delivery) with a dash of shuffling that comes with someone trading for an earlier ride (I recall that DIRECTV gave up their original position in the previous launch campaign).


----------



## inkahauts

The thread is simply about the next launch.not if it's late and by how much as you suggest. 

And his guess about the merger having no bearing is very much relevant when someone else asked if it could stop the launch. 

And reality is they got in a line to launch a sat and they are still in line and aren't first in line yet. That's just the way it is.


----------



## P Smith

we are shooting in a dark by hearing something from around

and it will continue up to the real launch event ... that's our nature is to guess in such DTV environment full of secrecy :shrug:


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> And reality is the got in a line to launch a sat and they are still in line and aren't order in line yet.


It is at least interesting that they were in order and now they're not. It is all part of discovering the eventual launch time and the process in general. Those who pay attention will hopefully temper their reasoning with that in mind.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> It is at least interesting that they were in order and now they're not. It is all part of discovering the eventual launch time and the process in general. Those who pay attention will hopefully temper their reasoning with that in mind.


What a semantically-null and frankly, dull comment; it's almost as if you want to get the last word in, regardless of how useless that word actually is to the substance of the discussion.


----------



## Diana C

There is nothing more mysterious going on here than the usual Arianespace chaos. If you look back over the history of Arianespace I don't think they have EVER launched a commercial payload on time. They are the MOST delay-prone commercial launch service, but at the moment, they are the only real option for DirecTV. The alternatives when they were contracting a launch were to wait for SeaLaunch to maybe someday getting back into business (they still have not) or rolling the dice on the Proton (who had a launch failure as recently as last month - the fifth out of the last 36 attempts).


----------



## bobnielsen

Diana C said:


> There is nothing more mysterious going on here than the usual Arianespace chaos. If you look back over the history of Arianespace I don't think they have EVER launched a commercial payload on time. They are the MOST delay-prone commercial launch service, but at the moment, they are the only real option for DirecTV. The alternatives when they were contracting a launch were to wait for SeaLaunch to maybe someday getting back into business (they still have not) or rolling the dice on the Proton (who had a launch failure as recently as last month - the fifth out of the last 36 attempts).


Eutelsat 3B was launched by SeaLaunch on May 27.


----------



## HarleyD

bobnielsen said:


> Eutelsat 3B was launched by SeaLaunch on May 27.


But the launch contracts for the next two birds were negotiated over 2 years ago.

Sea Launch wasn't even an option at that time.


----------



## James Long

Diana C said:


> If you look back over the history of Arianespace I don't think they have EVER launched a commercial payload on time.


All of their launches were on time since the launch date is not set until the last minute.


----------



## Diana C

bobnielsen said:


> Eutelsat 3B was launched by SeaLaunch on May 27.


Wow, how did I miss that? I thought they were still a couple of months away from resuming operations. As Harley notes, Sea Launch wasn't a viable option when they were contracting this launch.


----------



## Diana C

James Long said:


> All of their launches were on time since the launch date is not set until the last minute.


:rotfl:


----------



## P Smith

Diana C said:


> Wow, how did I miss that? I thought they were still a couple of months away from resuming operations. As Harley notes, Sea Launch wasn't a viable option when they were contracting this launch.


you misapprehend six months of SL's life


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> What a semantically-null and frankly, dull comment; it's almost as if you want to get the last word in, regardless of how useless that word actually is to the substance of the discussion.


Attacking the messenger?

Changing the tone to be more or less joy-joy doesn't change the news.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Attacking the messenger?
> 
> Changing the tone to be more or less joy-joy doesn't change the news.


What is there to be "joy-joy" or pessimistic about? Who really cares whether D-14 is launched in June, July, August, or any other time? This is just amusing speculation. If D-14 doesn't launch until next January, what does that effect? The introduction some more HD channels that maybe 5% of viewers care about? If some "must have" channel pops up they can always add it, even without D-14, by pulling a PPV channel.

If you are feeling under attack, to paraphrase Shakespeare, the problem, my dear Basset, may rest not with the other posters but with yourself.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> If D-14 doesn't launch until next January, what does that effect? The introduction some more HD channels that maybe 5% of viewers care about? If some "must have" channel pops up they can always add it, even without D-14, by pulling a PPV channel.


Speculating about the launch date can be great fun. The NASA Space Flight website is largely built on launch related news and speculation.

The impact comes in the form of not throwing the customer a bone in a rather long time. Kind of like when DIRECTV promised dozens and dozens of HD channels back in 2004. In this marketplace where cable's fortunes seem to be rising again (while DIRECTV's US fortunes are looking flat) and with OTT services gaining familiarity and interest, this should not be ignored. DIRECTV is charging premium prices but they're still not offering some important channels (probably more than 5% interest if the anticipation thread is to be considered) in HD as well as a few channels that aren't offered at all (the international news channels are always chewy). The AT&T thread has also driven home some non-negligible deficiencies in the race for market share but it will be at least two commitment cycles before that really catches on.

DIRECTV has offered up one not yet linear news channel in the foreseeable future and it is a domestic news channel. Is this the best they can do? I'm pretty sure that there would be a whole lot more interest in MAV TV if it were offered in HD.

DIRECTV doesn't shut down their precious PPV channels for more than a few hours at a time. Imagine how much more they could make if they didn't shut them down at all.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Speculating about the launch date can be great fun. The NASA Space Flight website is largely built on launch related news and speculation.The impact comes in the form of not throwing the customer a bone in a rather long time. Kind of like when DIRECTV promised dozens and dozens of HD channels back in 2004. In this marketplace where cable's fortunes seem to be rising again (while DIRECTV's US fortunes are looking flat) and with OTT services gaining familiarity and interest, this should not be ignored. DIRECTV is charging premium prices but they're still not offering some important channels (probably more than 5% interest if the anticipation thread is to be considered) in HD as well as a few channels that aren't offered at all (the international news channels are always chewy). The AT&T thread has also driven home some non-negligible deficiencies in the race for market share but it will be at least two commitment cycles before that really catches on.DIRECTV has offered up one not yet linear news channel in the foreseeable future and it is a domestic news channel. Is this the best they can do? I'm pretty sure that there would be a whole lot more interest in MAV TV if it were offered in HD.DIRECTV doesn't shut down their precious PPV channels for more than a few hours at a time. Imagine how much more they could make if they didn't shut them down at all.


MAVTV was just added (in HD) to FiOS-TV this week (as was Fusion)...<yawn>. If EVERY registered member of this forum clamored for a given channel, that would translate to 0.025% of all DirecTV customers - good luck getting 1/4 of the members to back a "missing" channel.

I just went through the exercise of comparing the channel lineup of DirecTV, Dish Network, Verizon and Cablevision...I don't think there was more than a 4 or 5 channel difference between any of them, and each one was missing a few channels that one or the other carried. While we here love to speculate about all sorts of things, from satellite launches to channel additions to new features in the next software release, the reality is that pretty much anyone would be satisfied with any of the major providers' channel lineup.

While DBSTalk may be important to DirecTV, they don't run their business based solely on what they read here.

All that said, I think you missed my point (either accidentally or purposefully): nearly every post you make is derogatory to DirecTV, either overtly or by inference. You criticize their satellite technology, their content management, their business practices and virtually every aspect of the service and company one can name. So, you should not be surprised when some other posters call you to task for it. One can only reap what one sows.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> Attacking the messenger?


I'm merely pointing out what is inherently obvious by nearly every post you make regarding Directv, a service you don't (nor apparently ever have) subscribe to. If you perceive that as an attack, perhaps the problem is your perception, not my comment.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Discuss the topic and not each other. Take it to PM or let it go.


----------



## bjlc

just asking.. but, with the situation in Russia, do you really think that the the USA will allow a satellite to be launched by them and have them make money on the deal? I am not trying to start a fight,, I am just asking.. and is there a fixed date for this launch as well?


----------



## P Smith

bjlc said:


> just asking.. but, with the situation in Russia, do you really think that the the USA will allow a satellite to be launched by them and have them make money on the deal? I am not trying to start a fight,,


what you asking for is not belong to the thread
and dragging it offtopic

as to fixed date ... well, just read the thread - last pages have the answer


----------



## dwrats_56

bjlc said:


> just asking.. but, with the situation in Russia, do you really think that the the USA will allow a satellite to be launched by them and have them make money on the deal? I am not trying to start a fight,, I am just asking.. and is there a fixed date for this launch as well?


Since the launch of D14 is contracted with Arianespace, the Russians are not involved.

No firm date has been set that I have been able to find.


----------



## HoTat2

bjlc said:


> just asking.. but, with the situation in Russia, do you really think that the the USA will allow a satellite to be launched by them and have them make money on the deal? I am not trying to start a fight,, I am just asking.. and is there a fixed date for this launch as well?


1) IMHO, a better than even chance that they would.

I find international politics to be largely hypocritical. Both currently and throughout history is replete with examples of allegedly adversarial countries governments and their corporations regularly engaging in all sorts of economic business deals with each other, particularly between the larger and/or richer countries.

2) No firm date is scheduled for D14 outside of sometime in the last quarter of this year.


----------



## slice1900

The US government isn't going to care whether Russia was contracted to launch a commercial satellite. They would only care if it had some sort of sensitive payload they considered "secret", which commercial satellites rarely do (and DBS satellites probably never do) In such a case the government would involved in the contracting anyway, so if they decided to let Russia launch such a satellite it would because they figured any secret technology it contained was something Russia already had.

We might be less than best friends with Russia right now due to our hypocritical posturing about Ukraine, but it is hardly another cold war, so the government wouldn't get involved in such a case. It would be a different story if a US company contracted with Iran, for instance, to launch a satellite. The government would probably put a stop to that, in the name of trade sanctions or whatever.

However, as dwrats_56 points out, the D14 launch is already contracted, and not with the Russians, so the question is irrelevant to D14 (or D15) If Directv announces a future satellite build then one can speculate on who might get the launch contract. Though until the Russians can avoid having them blow up on the launch pad as happened earlier this year, they are less than likely to get such a contract!


----------



## Sixto

"DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC ("DIRECTV") is authorized to launch and operate DIRECTV RB-1, a 17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service ("BSS") payload (Call Sign S2711), at the nominal 99° W.L. orbital location.1 Soon after receiving its license, DIRECTV diligently entered into a satellite construction contract and a launch services contract for a spacecraft (DIRECTV 14) that will include a 17/24 GHz BSS payload to be operated under this license, coordinated to satisfy the July 28, 2014 "launch and begin operations" milestone in its authorization. The satellite has been fully constructed and tested since December 2013, with 98.5% of all pre-launch construction payments made. DIRECTV has also maintained its place in the queue of its launch provider, and made 90% of the payments required under that agreement. No one is more eager to launch this satellite than DIRECTV. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons beyond DIRECTV's control, the current launch window for the satellite has moved steadily later in time. It is currently estimated to fall sometime in December 2014, after which DIRECTV will need to conduct in-orbit testing before moving the satellite to its assigned location and beginning operations. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 25.117(e) of the Commission's rules, DIRECTV hereby requests a seven month extension, up to and including February 28, 2015, to meet its "launch and begin operations" milestone for DIRECTV RB-1. In the alternative, it requests that the Commission waive that milestone for good cause shown."

That's just a clip ... no need to speculate ... all of the details are in this attachment ...

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1051818


----------



## inkahauts

So they have been ready for six months. Space x must bring seeing these things and just wondering how many contracts they will be able to get once they get going with sat launches as well as several other companies.


----------



## Sixto

Similar details for D15: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1051806

I only cut-paste a little bit ... all the details in the attachments ...


----------



## P Smith

Haven't seen Space X ready for deliver satellite to GSO


----------



## HoTat2

Sixto said:


> Similar details for D15: http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1051806
> 
> I only cut-paste a little bit ... all the details in the attachments ...


From the RB-2 milestone extension request, though similar wording is in the RB-1 request too.



> _... DIRECTV has also made significant progress with other elements of its system, _
> _including the construction of in-orbit test, TT&C and communications ground _
> _infrastructure at three of DIRECTV's existing uplink facilities (in Castle Rock, CO, _
> _New Hampton, NH, and Moxee, WA), *and development of new consumer *_
> *equipment capable of receiving and processing signals in the 17/24 GHz BSS band.*


Well ... at least this confirms that RDBS reception capability will require new equipment and not hidden in the current.

Boy would I sure like to get a look at it ....


----------



## inkahauts

Does it? There is new equipment since that day was commissioned to be built. Like the hr44. Just saying.


----------



## Diana C

Not just receivers...as we have somewhat exhaustively discussed elsewhere, it is highly likely that new LNBs will be needed. The current line of SWiM and legacy LNBs were all designed quite a while ago, so it would be amazingly prescient if they already had RDBS capabilities.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> Not just receivers...as we have somewhat exhaustively discussed elsewhere, it is highly likely that new LNBs will be needed. The current line of SWiM and legacy LNBs were all designed quite a while ago, so it would be amazingly prescient if they already had RDBS capabilities.


Since the receivers all tune IF, that shouldn't be an issue. The smarts comes from the SWiM side of things with some accompanying software on the receiver side that speaks the command protocol to get the appropriate channel placed in the SWiM stack. It probably isn't reasonable to come up with a legacy polarity stack plan.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> Not just receivers...as we have somewhat exhaustively discussed elsewhere, it is highly likely that new LNBs will be needed. The current line of SWiM and legacy LNBs were all designed quite a while ago, so it would be amazingly prescient if they already had RDBS capabilities.


The SWM LNB was designed after Directv had filed its original RDBS requests, so it wouldn't be that prescient to make it capable of receiving it, nor would it be add much cost. One or two extra DROs, a few extra filters and mixers.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Since the receivers all tune IF, that shouldn't be an issue. The smarts comes from the SWiM side of things with some accompanying software on the receiver side that speaks the command protocol to get the appropriate channel placed in the SWiM stack. It probably isn't reasonable to come up with a legacy polarity stack plan.


How is it not reasonable to come up with a legacy polarity stack plan for RDBS? They have to do that, since not every customer can use a SWM LNB. It would require some combination of higher frequencies, smaller gaps in the stack, or additional cables.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> 2) No firm date is scheduled for D14 outside of sometime in the last quarter of this year.


With the knowledge that Arianespace postponed the June launch to September, a 2014 launch is getting less and less likely. DIRECTVLA's satellite (Intelsat 30/DLA 1) has a rocket (VA220) and is also planned for September so I'm thinking that something has got to give.

2014 isn't off the table, but it doesn't look all that promising to do three launches in four months given that they will have done only two in the first six months.


----------



## HarleyD

I thought it was interesting that one of the thrusts in justifying the milestone extensions is that this pioneering use of the allocated spectrum supports delivery of UHD programming.


----------



## HarleyD

harsh said:


> With the knowledge that Arianespace postponed the June launch to September, a 2014 launch is getting less and less likely. DIRECTVLA's satellite (Intelsat 30/DLA 1) has a rocket (VA220) and is also planned for September so I'm thinking that something has got to give.
> 
> 2014 isn't off the table, but it doesn't look all that promising to do three launches in four months given that they will have done only two in the first six months.


The extension filing gives a target of December 2014 for D14, as per Arianespace estimates (at this time). Allowing for two months of IOT and placement they have requested a 7 month extension from 7/28/2014 to 2/28/2015 of the final launch/operate milestone...if not an outright waiver of that milestone.

But December 2014 is now a pretty specific estimate.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> How is it not reasonable to come up with a legacy polarity stack plan for RDBS? They have to do that, since not every customer can use a SWM LNB. It would require some combination of higher frequencies, smaller gaps in the stack, or additional cables.


Forcing an upgrade of legacy equipment on those who want RDBS delivered services seems reasonable to me.

If it isn't, they could surely provide a SWiM switch with legacy outputs as they do now. Adding another polarity seems likely to require more dish rewires where using SWiM wouldn't. They could probably still pull off a SWiM LNB where running a fifth wire is going to add frustration and another point of failure.


----------



## harsh

HarleyD said:


> But December 2014 is now a pretty specific estimate.


I'm looking at the big picture of the Ariane 5 launch schedule versus DIRECTV's plans. Until Arianespace finds a suitable co-load for DIRECTV 14 and assigns a rocket, nothing seems cast in stone.


----------



## HarleyD

harsh said:


> I'm looking at the big picture of the Ariane 5 launch schedule versus DIRECTV's plans. Until Arianespace finds a suitable co-load for DIRECTV 14 and assigns a rocket, nothing seems cast in stone.


DirecTV must be pretty sold on it or they would have asked for a longer extension in this filing. February 28, 2015 doesn't leave much wiggle room from that launch estimate.

As it is, if that 12/14 projection slides by even a little bit they lose the window they need for the IOT, etc. and would have to request _another_ milestone extension...provided they don't receive an outright waiver on this request.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Forcing an upgrade of legacy equipment on those who want RDBS delivered services seems reasonable to me.
> 
> If it isn't, they could surely provide a SWiM switch with legacy outputs as they do now. Adding another polarity seems likely to require more dish rewires where using SWiM wouldn't. They could probably still pull off a SWiM LNB where running a fifth wire is going to add frustration and another point of failure.


Depends entirely on what they use RDBS for now, doesn't it? If they use it for UHD (which now seems very likely) then anyone wanting UHD would have to replace their equipment. Whether that is LNB (or the entire dish), a multswitch, or one or more receivers is just a detail. The cost of the upgrade will, most likely, be partially covered by an upgrade fee with the rest covered by incremental subscription revenue over the course of the users' commitment.

It would appear that regular HD will remain on Ka from 99 and 103, SD will remain on Ku from 101, and UHD will be on RDBS from 99 and 103 (eventually). This way, no one needs to upgrade anything unless you want UHD service. This is very much like what they did when they introduced HD.

There are still a lot of people out there with 18 inch, mono-focus dishes who haven't upgraded anything in over a decade. This will be the same.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> I'm looking at the big picture of the Ariane 5 launch schedule versus DIRECTV's plans. Until Arianespace finds a suitable co-load for DIRECTV 14 and assigns a rocket, nothing seems cast in stone.


Don't worry...DirecTV isn't going to lose the RDBS licenses.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> Depends entirely on what they use RDBS for now, doesn't it? If they use it for UHD (which now seems very likely) then anyone wanting UHD would have to replace their equipment. Whether that is LNB (or the entire dish), a multswitch, or one or more receivers is just a detail. The cost of the upgrade will, most likely, be partially covered by an upgrade fee with the rest covered by incremental subscription revenue over the course of the users' commitment.
> 
> It would appear that regular HD will remain on Ka from 99 and 103, SD will remain on Ku from 101, and UHD will be on RDBS from 99 and 103 (eventually). This way, no one needs to upgrade anything unless you want UHD service. This is very much like what they did when they introduced HD.
> 
> There are still a lot of people out there with 18 inch, mono-focus dishes who haven't upgraded anything in over a decade. This will be the same.


Why has everyone suddenly come to the conclusion that RDBS will have for UHD only? The blurb Sixto quoted in another thread says no such thing, only that it will "enable" UHD, not that it will be exclusively used for UHD.

The recent RB-2 licensing request states that it will be used for HD programming. Of course, if SWM LNBs are incapable of receiving RDBS (we can only speculate either way at this point) it would make sense to limit what non-UHD programming it offers to niche content, to reduce the number of customers who require upgrades.


----------



## Diana C

You are correct of course. Obviously, at some point in the future, SD duplicates will be eliminated so that will precipitate lots of changes. But for the near future, D14 will fill out the Ka space at 99 and provide the ability to start using RDBS. They need to do something with RDBS (or else run the risk of being accused of warehousing licenses), so UHD is as good as anything.

Until it actually happens, I am skeptical that any current LNB can deal with the additional band, or that any existing receiver can handle UHD content. To minimize the number of upgrades I expect that until the rest of 99 Ka is full we won't see much of anything else on RDBS. Maybe they'll migrate the WD content, but I wouldn't count on that in the near term.


----------



## James Long

It is common for launch requests to list the most advanced technologies when requesting permission for new satellites. It is more impressive to say that DirecTV needs the satellites for UHD than "expand SD programming". 

Just because a satellite was touted for UHD does not prohibit DirecTV from using it for any valid DBS service.

For the extension explaining that DirecTV has continued investment working toward the launch shows that they do not want the delay. DirecTV didn't push the launch seven months to save money ... they have been continuing to invest toward the day that the satellite is available for service.


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> Why has everyone suddenly come to the conclusion that RDBS will have for UHD only? The blurb Sixto quoted in another thread says no such thing, only that it will "enable" UHD, not that it will be exclusively used for UHD.
> 
> The recent RB-2 licensing request states that it will be used for HD programming. Of course, if SWM LNBs are incapable of receiving RDBS (we can only speculate either way at this point) it would make sense to limit what non-UHD programming it offers to niche content, to reduce the number of customers who require upgrades.


I think it will also be used to get rid of the world dish and add more hd to the Spanish packages and any channels from the world dish. Just my guess... But how Much simpler would it be for one dish for all. Lots of world dishes get installed in Southern California. Lots.

And directv obviously wants to capitalize on foreign channels it's likely one of the areas they can grow the most in on this country.


----------



## slice1900

I agree, I've been saying for months I thought they'd use RDBS to replicate content on 95 and probably 119 as well. The existing 95 and 119 installs will keep working for some time, so they wouldn't go back and upgrade those people, but it would simplify new installs with everything being a SL3.

However, that won't require very many transponders. There are 9 transponders on 95 and 7 on 119 (not counting spots) Using MPEG4 compression and thanks to wider transponders they'd only need about 6 or 7 RDBS tpns to cover it. If they use 8PSK they'd cut that down to 4 or 5.


----------



## Jason Whiddon

I'll be curious to watch this shake out. My plans to enter UHD are this time in 2016. Im giving them all of 2015 to figure out blu-ray players and all that stuff, plus want to see how OLED does.

Fun times.


----------



## harsh

HarleyD said:


> As it is, if that 12/14 projection slides by even a little bit they lose the window they need for the IOT, etc. and would have to request _another_ milestone extension...provided they don't receive an outright waiver on this request.


Ah, but now they've laid the blame at Arianespace's feet.


----------



## RAD

So is SSL to partly blame for it being late? Looking at the letter dated 6/19/14 from SSL they say:



> The original contract ship date foe DIRECTV-14 was April 2013, however the spacecraft experienced delays to the delivery schedule for reasons including subcontract vendor selection, manufacturing procsses, technical challenges and the desire to do additional work on the satellite to eliminate a situration experienced bu another satellite manufactured by SSL. Now, the delays have been addressed and certain re-work is completed and being tested. We anticipate the final component for DIRECTV-14, which is currently being tested, will be ready in August 2014.


That seems to me that SSL is the cause for the delay which runs counter to the posts from a certain Dish customer that has said that SSL is usually on time delivering satellites.


----------



## Diana C

Why are we trying to affix blame at all? You know, this _*IS*_ rocket science. Stuff happens to cause delays. That's the nature of the beast.


----------



## harsh

RAD said:


> That seems to me that SSL is the cause for the delay which runs counter to the posts from a certain Dish customer that has said that SSL is usually on time delivering satellites.


Optus 10 was ready according to both SSL and the owner. That it had to be "reverified" is rather uncertain as to who's fault it might be (if any). Now it is battling with DLA 1 for a launch spot as both moved to NET September yesterday.

If DIRECTV 15 is late, I'd wager it isn't because of SSL. SSL is not only typically on time but occasionally early.

Yesterday's update by salo has a July 25th launch, two NET Septembers, two Q4s and an EOY. I predict that at least two of those are going to end up sliding to 2015. Having a rocket assigned arguably gives a bird a much better chance. Iff (if and only if) a suitable <4 ton bird shows up, DIRECTV may at least get a lauch vehicle.

----8<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 25 - ATV-5 Georges Lemaître - Ariane 5 ES (VA219) - Kourou ELA-3 - 01:41:04
NET September - Measat 3b/Jabiru 2, Optus 10 - Ariane 5 ECA (VA218) - Kourou ELA-3
NET September - Intelsat 30/DLA 1 (TBD), Arsat 1 - Ariane 5 ECA (VA220) - Kourou ELA-3
fourth quarter - Thor 7, Sicral-2/Syracuse-3C - Ariane 5 ECA (VA221) - Kourou ELA-3
fourth quarter - DirecTV 14 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3 (or 2015)
end of year - Star One C4 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3 (or 2015)


----------



## RAD

harsh said:


> SSL is not only typically on time but occasionally early.


Didn't SSL go through bankruptcy proceedings a number of years back which delayed DIRECTV 7S?

Just saying it looks like any delays on DIRECTV 14 started with SSL recent past performance isn't always an indicator of current performance.


----------



## harsh

RAD said:


> Just saying it looks like any delays on DIRECTV 14 started with SSL recent past performance isn't always an indicator of current performance.


In that the general contractor is usually responsible for the subcontractors, what you say is true.

If DIRECTV stipulated the subcontractor or that subcontractor _is_ DIRECTV, that's a different argument entirely.

I had hoped that SSL could break the spell but it looks like when it comes to DIRECTV's domestic satellites, late is how it is.


----------



## harsh

dwrats_56 said:


> Since the launch of D14 is contracted with Arianespace, the Russians are not involved.


I bet the Russians are involved in the manufacture of the motors.


----------



## harsh

Yesterday a poster with the handle of Jester on nasaspaceflight.com offered up a new order for the next three Ariane 5 launches. They are as follows:

July 29 (four days delayed, still only their third Ariane 5 launch of 2014) VA119
September 11 (was NET September) VA118
October 16 (was NET September, DLA 1) VA220

Looking at salo's current list, DIRECTV 15 has been changed from "fourth quarter" 2014 to "first half" 2015. It appears that there will be _at least_ one Ariane 5 launch (first quarter, GSAT-16) and NBN CO 1A has a window of "early" 2015 launch before DIRECTV 14 is up. Of course a DIRECTV 14 launch is still waiting for a suitable co-load.

edit (I carelessly confused DIRECTV 15 with DIRECTV 14 -- again): DIRECTV 14 has been moved to TBD 2015 absent a suitable co-load.

Thor 7 is now salo's final Ariane 5 launch of 2014 at this time and would theoretically follow DLA 1 by at least a month.

For clarification, DLA 1 (aka Intelsat 30) is a DIRECTV LA bird.


----------



## boukengreen

harsh said:


> Yesterday a poster with the handle of Jester on nasaspaceflight.com offered up a new order for the next three Ariane 5 launches. They are as follows:
> 
> July 29 (four days delayed, still only their third Ariane 5 launch of 2014) VA119
> September 11 (was NET September) VA118
> October 16 (was NET September, DLA 1) VA220
> 
> Looking at salo's current list, DIRECTV 15 has been changed from "fourth quarter" 2014 to "first half" 2015. It appears that there will be _at least_ one Ariane 5 launch (first quarter, GSAT-16) and NBN CO 1A has a window of "early" 2015 launch before DIRECTV 14 is up. Of course a DIRECTV 14 launch is still waiting for a suitable co-load.
> 
> Thor 7 is now salo's final Ariane 5 launch of 2014 at this time and would theoretically follow DLA 1 by at least a month.
> 
> For clarification, DLA 1 (aka Intelsat 30) is a DIRECTV LA bird.


so it will still be a while till the new bird is up and running. Based on that will be late 2015 before it goes live


----------



## slice1900

Is it possible D15 might launch before D14, if D14 doesn't get a co-load?


----------



## inkahauts

Heck, I wonder if they might put D14 and D15 as co loads.... I wonder if they could even do that with them both headed to such a similar location


----------



## P Smith

inkahauts said:


> Heck, I wonder if they might put D14 and D15 as co loads.... I wonder if they could even do that with them both headed to such a similar location


and what max payload Ariane could deliver to GSO ? What weight of each DTV sat ?


----------



## David Ortiz

inkahauts said:


> Heck, I wonder if they might put D14 and D15 as co loads.... I wonder if they could even do that with them both headed to such a similar location


Talk about putting all your eggs on one rocket... :nono2:


----------



## damondlt

I found this, it still says estimated December 2014.
http://www.satbeams.com/satellites?id=2567

This claims it only weighs 7800 lbs.


----------



## longrider

Aside from the fact that putting both sats on one rocket is a very bad idea the Ariane 5 ECA could not handle the load. While the dry weight might be only 7800 lbs (3573 kg) the launch mass is 6502 kg or 6.5 metric tons which is 65% of the capacity of the rocket:



> Payload capacity: 10 metric tons to GTO


Source: http://www.arianespace.com/launch-services-ariane5/ariane-5-intro.asp


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Is it possible D15 might launch before D14, if D14 doesn't get a co-load?


Because they are similar in launch mass, this seems unlikely but not out of the realm of possibility.

Looking back at salo's schedule, it is DIRECTV 15 that is scheduled for "first half" 2015 and DIRECTV 14 was moved to "TBD" 2015. salo makes edits to the post and sometimes stuff disappears or moves around. I apologize profusely for confusing the two.

Here's the latest Ariane 5 ECA list for 2015:

early - NBN CO 1A - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
first quarter - GSAT-16 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
first half - DirecTV 15 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
second quarter - Intelsat-34 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
August - MSG-4/Meteosat-11 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
midyear - Measat-3c/Jabiru-1 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
second half - DIRECTV INNOVA/SKYMEXICO 1 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
second half - Arabsat-6B/Badr 7 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
late - DSN-1 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
end of year - NBN CO 1B - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
TBD - DirecTV 14 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
TBD - Star One C4 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
TBD - EchoStar XVIII - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
TBD - Hispasat AG1 - Ariane 5 ECA- Kourou ELA-3
TBD - GSAT-15 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3

Perhaps not obviously, the TBDs could be slotted in almost anywhere.


----------



## harsh

boukengreen said:


> so it will still be a while till the new bird is up and running. Based on that will be late 2015 before it goes live


It isn't reasonable to assume when it will go live based on the available information. It is arguably reasonable to surmise when it WON'T be available.

It is possible, however remotely, that arrangements could be made to allow DIRECTV 14 to launch this year, but it would represent either an enormous stroke of luck or perhaps a significant additional financial investment.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> It isn't reasonable to assume when it will go live based on the available information. It is arguably reasonable to surmise when it WON'T be available.
> 
> It is possible, however remotely, that arrangements could be made to allow DIRECTV 14 to launch this year, but it would represent either *an enormous stroke of luck *or perhaps a significant additional financial investment.


There is no luck involved in satellite launches or the planning done in advance.

Likewise, a very few see the glass half empty, while most folks see the glass as half full.

DirecTV is in a far better position to execute a short term and long term strategic business plan than its lowly Dish counterpart - which might just explain why any Dish customers posting in this thread have so much interest in DirecTV's plans.


----------



## slice1900

I suppose it is possible to pay to move up in the list by swapping spots with someone else's satellite, but Directv doesn't appear to have any pressing need to do so. No one is doing 4K yet, and while D14 should allow them to cover all DMAs, the dozen or so currently unserved markets are all tiny so the impact to Directv's revenue from being better positioned to add customers in those markets would be a rounding error.

The only reason I think they'd really want to see it launch today rather than a year from now is "just in case" something goes wrong with one of their existing satellites. We'd prefer it sooner so we'd have something to talk about other than when it will launch


----------



## Diana C

There is also the issue of the RDBS licenses. Didn't DirecTV ask for an extension of the milestone requirements? IIRC, the extension on the operational milestone was only until the spring...if the satellite doesn't launch until spring they will have a hard time making that deadline.


----------



## HoTat2

Diana C said:


> There is also the issue of the RDBS licenses. Didn't DirecTV ask for an extension of the milestone requirements? IIRC, the extension on the operational milestone was only until the spring...if the satellite doesn't launch until spring they will have a hard time making that deadline.


Yep, for RB-1 and 2;

And since these are the RDBS payloads for D14 and 15 respectively, obviously their beginning of operation marks the beginning of the Ka band payload of the same satellites.

So for D14/RB-1 the original extension request was up until Feb. 28, 2015

For D15/RB-2 up until April 27, 2015.

Looks like DIRECTV is going to need additional RDBS milestone extensions ...


----------



## damondlt

Did anyone notice 95% of D14 is spotbeams?
Not sure what big national HD launch you guys are all expecting.


----------



## damondlt

Also this link shows a December launch date for Directv 15.
http://www.satbeams.com/satellites?id=2590


----------



## HoTat2

damondlt said:


> Did anyone notice 95% of D14 is spotbeams?
> Not sure what big national HD launch you guys are all expecting.


What do you mean?

D14/RB-1 will have 8 transponders assigned to spotbeams, 16 CONUS for national HD, and 18 RDBS tps. for national HD and/or UHD.

How do you figure 95% for spots?


----------



## HoTat2

damondlt said:


> Also this link shows a December launch date for Directv 15.
> http://www.satbeams.com/satellites?id=2590


While useful at times;

i find satbeams to be inaccurate and out of date a lot . There is no way D15/RB-2 is going to launch this year. Be lucky if D14/RB-1 does.

Just like the data they list for D15;



> _*30* high power transponders in Ku-band, *24* transponders in Ka-band, 18 transponders in Reverse Band, and will be able to operate from up to five orbital locations from 99°W to 119°W, covering Continental US (CONUS), Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico_


And no beams listed.

There are 32 Ku band transponders, and 38 Ka band (of which up to 24 in any combination may be active). And the beams are now known to be 10 downlinks total.


----------



## James Long

HoTat2 said:


> How do you figure 95% for spots?


Probably counting spotbeams and not transponders used for spotbeams. It is an easy mistake to make.


----------



## damondlt

Did you guys read this link?

http://www.satbeams.com/satellites?id=2567


----------



## RAD

Remember, spot beams reuse transponder frequencies so yes there could be 100 (for example) spot beams but those 100 just keep reusing the same 8 actual transponder frequencies.


----------



## damondlt

Just saying it looks like a Spaceway replacement satellite more than HD expansion satellite.


----------



## HarleyD

Diana C said:


> There is also the issue of the RDBS licenses. Didn't DirecTV ask for an extension of the milestone requirements? IIRC, the extension on the operational milestone was only until the spring...if the satellite doesn't launch until spring they will have a hard time making that deadline.


OF course the wild card is that they requested an extension or _an outright waiver_ of the milestone deadline.

If they get a waiver who knows how long it could streatch out based on the endless rolling delays.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There is no luck involved in satellite launches or the planning done in advance.


The 7 month extension on RB-1 and the nine month extension on RB-2 suggest otherwise. A couple of recent catastrophic ILS launch failures also beg to differ.

I note that the satellite that DIRECTV 14 was originally paired with by Arianespace (GSAT 16, 3400Kg) and assigned a rocket (VA221), is slotted for "first quarter" 2015 on salo's schedule. GSAT 15 is reportedly a 200Kg lighter bus than GSAT 16 and is also looking for a partner.

The Indian space organization, ISRO, issued a press release last Wednesday proclaiming that GSAT 15 would be launched by March 31 (the end of the government's fiscal year) and GSAT 16 would fly by mid-year 2015.

The boggle to me is why the VA221 rocket was reassigned moving Thor 7 in front of DIRECTV 14 in the queue; especially in view of DIRECTV's claims to be doing everything in their power to meet the deadline.


----------



## James Long

damondlt said:


> Did anyone notice 95% of D14 is spotbeams?
> Not sure what big national HD launch you guys are all expecting.





damondlt said:


> Just saying it looks like a Spaceway replacement satellite more than HD expansion satellite.


16 transponders for national HD (not including RDBS). Five channels per transponder is capacity for 80 HD feeds.
That is where the "big national HD launch" is supported in the numbers.

Don't be confused by the spots sharing 8 transponders. The Ka side of the satellite is 2/3rds ConUS.


----------



## damondlt

Yes but Spaceway capacity will not be there forever. DIRECTV 14 is going to be the replacement, so your not gaining all of Directv 14 capacity, you are most likely losing Spaceway 1 as well. 
If I remember correctly Spaceway life span is 2017 or 18,
My guess DIRECTV 14 wouldn't be functional until sometime in mid to late 2015 at best.

I think if it was going bring so much more HD to the table, it would be done with a lot more urgency.
Seems it's more of a maintenance requirement.


----------



## slice1900

damondlt said:


> Yes but Spaceway capacity will not be there forever. DIRECTV 14 is going to be the replacement, so your not gaining all of Directv 14 capacity, you are most likely losing Spaceway 1 as well.
> If I remember correctly Spaceway life span is 2017 or 18,
> My guess DIRECTV 14 wouldn't be functional until sometime in mid to late 2015 at best.
> 
> I think if it was going bring so much more HD to the table, it would be done with a lot more urgency.
> Seems it's more of a maintenance requirement.


Spaceway 1 & 2 are spot beams only. D14 will presumably replace SW2's spot beams. Since it has normal transponders instead of the 62.5 MHz wide transponders that SW2 does, it makes more efficient use of the spectrum so they'll be able to add two transponders' worth of spot beams (probably 20-25 beams) that will allow them to cover the dozen or so areas they currently aren't covering. The remaining capacity will allow them to perhaps start replicating/migrating spot beams from 119.

Unless there are unreported issues with the Spaceways, they have plenty of life left beyond 2017-8. They have enough fuel to go sometime past 2020, and since they are using much less power than they were originally designed for there should be no issue with the panels/batteries.

I'll bet if someone made a list of all the HD channels that any other provider in the US has that Directv doesn't, they couldn't get halfway to 80 channels. Not that they'll add them all, but even if they did there will be a lot left over. The rest might be used for better HD quality (we hope) or more PPV (more likely)

Directv will be in a position where one of their satellites could have an unexpected total failure (solar flare or meteor strike) and they'd be OK. That's "nice to have", but probably not worth getting too worried about since in-orbit satellite failures without any warning are fairly rare.


----------



## damondlt

Spaceway 1 and 2 have a 12 -15 year life span.
Google it.

They were in service since 2005. You do the math.
Directv knows a thing or two about satellites, they are not going to wait until they crap out, before they get replaced.
They are going to start planning years ahead.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Spaceway 1 & 2 are spot beams only. D14 will presumably replace SW2's spot beams. Since it has normal transponders instead of the 62.5 MHz wide transponders that SW2 does, it makes more efficient use of the spectrum so they'll be able to add two transponders' worth of spot beams (probably 20-25 beams) that will allow them to cover the dozen or so areas they currently aren't covering. The remaining capacity will allow them to perhaps start replicating/migrating spot beams from 119. ...


And apparently DIRECTV feels after the addition of D14's Ka band spotbeam capacity to the fleet is more than sufficient for the future since D15 at 103 will have no spotbeam payload.

So the LiL spot capacity on Ka A and B bands at 99 and B band at 103 is enough I guess.

No need for spots on Ka A band at 103.


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> The 7 month extension on RB-1 and the nine month extension on RB-2 _*suggest otherwise*_. A couple of recent catastrophic ILS launch failures also beg to differ.
> 
> I note that the satellite that DIRECTV 14 was originally paired with by Arianespace (GSAT 16, 3400Kg) and assigned a rocket (VA221), is slotted for "first quarter" 2015 on salo's schedule. GSAT 15 is reportedly a 200Kg lighter bus than GSAT 16 and is also looking for a partner.
> 
> The Indian space organization, ISRO, issued a press release last Wednesday proclaiming that GSAT 15 would be launched by March 31 (the end of the government's fiscal year) and GSAT 16 would fly by mid-year 2015.
> 
> The boggle to me is why the VA221 rocket was reassigned moving Thor 7 in front of DIRECTV 14 in the queue; especially in view of DIRECTV's claims to be doing everything in their power to meet the deadline.


Beside your specious supposition, what actual facts would you like to bring to the discussion?


----------



## HarleyD

harsh said:


> The 7 month extension on RB-1 and the nine month extension on RB-2 suggest otherwise. A couple of recent catastrophic ILS launch failures also beg to differ.
> 
> I note that the satellite that DIRECTV 14 was originally paired with by Arianespace (GSAT 16, 3400Kg) and assigned a rocket (VA221), is slotted for "first quarter" 2015 on salo's schedule. GSAT 15 is reportedly a 200Kg lighter bus than GSAT 16 and is also looking for a partner.
> 
> The Indian space organization, ISRO, issued a press release last Wednesday proclaiming that GSAT 15 would be launched by March 31 (the end of the government's fiscal year) and GSAT 16 would fly by mid-year 2015.
> 
> The boggle to me is why the VA221 rocket was reassigned moving Thor 7 in front of DIRECTV 14 in the queue; especially in view of DIRECTV's claims to be doing everything in their power to meet the deadline.


I don't know how much to read into the physical position of Thor 7 and DirecTV14 in the most recent schedule Salo put up. There appears to be a lot "spitballing" around the end of 2014 and early 2015 in Salo's post. Thor 7 technically appears at the end of the 2014 launches with the caveat "or 2015" and DirecTV14, while listed in the 2015 part of his schedule is qualified as "fourth quarter 2014 TBD".

There seems to be more than some liquidity there and it may well be tied to their respective companion payloads.

But nothing seems to be etched in stone so much as penciled in Silly Putty.

NET September 12 - October 16 - Intelsat 30/DLA 1 (TBD), Arsat 1 - Ariane 5 ECA (VA220) - Kourou ELA-3
November 8 - IXV (suborbital launch) - Vega (VV04) - Kourou ZLV
November - Galileo-FOC FM03 (Adam), Galileo-FOC FM04 (Anastasia) - Soyuz-STB/Fregat-MT (VS10) - Kourou ELS
December - Galileo-FOC FM05 (Alba), Galileo-FOC FM06 (Oriana) - Soyuz-STB/Fregat-MT - Kourou ELS (or 2015)
*fourth quarter late - Thor 7, Sicral-2/Syracuse-3C - Ariane 5 ECA (VA221) - Kourou ELA-3 (or 2015)*

2015
early - Gokturk-1 - Vega - Kourou ZLV
early - O3b (4 sats) - Soyuz-STB/Fregat-MT - Kourou ELS
early - NBN CO 1A - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
first quarter - GSAT-16 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
April - Arsat 2 - Ariane 5 / Soyuz
May - LISA Pathfinder - Vega - Kourou ZLV
June August (TBD) - Sentinel-3B - Vega - Kourou ZLV
first half - DirecTV 15 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
second quarter - Intelsat-34 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
July - ADM-Aeolus - Vega - Kourou ZLV
August - MSG-4/Meteosat-11 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
midyear - Measat-3c/Jabiru-1 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
summer - TARANIS - Soyuz / Vega
second half - DIRECTV INNOVA/SKYMEXICO 1 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
second half - Arabsat-6B/Badr 7 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
September - Seosat-Ingenio - Vega - Kourou ZLV
late - DSN-1 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
end of year - NBN CO 1B - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
TBD - Galileo-FOC FM07 (Antonianna), Galileo-FOC FM08 (Andriana) - Soyuz-STB/Fregat-MT - Kourou ELS
TBD - Galileo-FOC FM09 (Liene), Galileo-FOC FM10 (Danielè) - Soyuz-STB/Fregat-MT - Kourou ELS
TBD - Galileo-FOC FM11 (Alizée), Galileo-FOC FM12 (Lisa), Galileo-FOC FM13 (Kimberley), Galileo-FOC FM14 (Tijmen) - Ariane 5 ES - Kourou ELA-3 (or December 2014)
TBD - Galileo-FOC FM15 (Nicole), Galileo-FOC FM16 (Zofia), Galileo-FOC FM17 (Alexandre), Galileo-FOC FM18 (Irina) - Ariane 5-ES - Kourou ELA-3
TBD - Galileo-FOC FM19 (Tara), Galileo-FOC FM20 (Samuel), Galileo-FOC FM21 (Anna), Galileo-FOC FM22 (Ellen) - Ariane 5-ES - Kourou ELA-3
*fourth quarter 2014 TBD - DirecTV 14 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3*
end of 2014 TBD - Star One C4 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
TBD - EchoStar XVIII - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
TBD - Hispasat AG1 - Ariane 5 ECA- Kourou ELA-3
TBD - GSAT-15 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
TBD - Optsat - Vega - Kourou ZLV


----------



## Diana C

damondlt said:


> Spaceway 1 and 2 have a 12 -15 year life span.
> Google it.
> 
> They were in service since 2005. You do the math.
> Directv knows a thing or two about satellites, they are not going to wait until they crap out, before they get replaced.
> They are going to start planning years ahead.


That's projected lifespan at launch. The closer you get to the end of that span, the more the lifespan can push out. The key factor is fuel...if a satellite has fuel, and hasn't been blasted by a solar flare or other mechanical issue, it can keep working almost indefinitely...at least until its batteries won't last through the night anymore (and nights are short for most of the year at GEO).


----------



## P Smith

There are many other technicalities what regular ppl not aware, like how many cycles Li-Ion/NiCd batteries withstand before deplete usable capacity (ehr, I know what kind batteries up there, if someone would come to say I'm incorrect, but to easy reading sake).
Degradations of ICs/etc under constant radiation and high energy particles. Occasional overheating, as supporting of thermal proper condition on the sats is very tedious task... and a lot more, what is discussing in departments, not in public.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

So in the end...*there is no 100% guaranty as to when this sat will be launched and activated *from the information posted to date here...just a fluid schedule situation.--- at least that's the public-facing reality -- speculation, assumptions, and document filings / estimates.

*It's fair to assume DirecTV knows the exact details, but that is likely not going to appear in this thread.*

Still...the posting and conversation is interesting.


----------



## Diana C

P Smith said:



> There are many other technicalities what regular ppl not aware, like how many cycles Li-Ion/NiCd batteries withstand before deplete usable capacity (ehr, I know what kind batteries up there, if someone would come to say I'm incorrect, but to easy reading sake).
> Degradations of ICs/etc under constant radiation and high energy particles. Occasional overheating, as supporting of thermal proper condition on the sats is very tedious task... and a lot more, what is discussing in departments, not in public.


Sure, but again barring some unusual event like a big flare or a micrometeorite collision, those things usually last a lot longer than the rated lifespan (which is almost always limited by a worst case projection of fuel consumption). It is not unusual for telecommunications satellites to last 20 years, or even more. Look at the saga of DirecTV-1R...currently being used by the Russians, IIRC.


----------



## P Smith

yep, that true ...


----------



## harsh

HarleyD said:


> I don't know how much to read into the physical position of Thor 7 and DirecTV14 in the most recent schedule Salo put up.


My confidence was based on the fact that DIRECTV 14 had been assigned a rocket by Arianespace and subsequently the rocket was reassigned to the Thor 7 launch. That is a clear indicator to me that a formal decision was made on the part of Arianespace to bump DIRECTV 14 as opposed to vagaries among salo's sources.

The rockets are usually launched in numeric order but VA218 was scrubbed because of a questions about Optus 10's readiness that have apparently been answered. That Optus 10's companions, Measat 3b and Jabiru 2 are being stored in Kourou probably forces that launch to proceed, albeit out of order.


----------



## HarleyD

harsh said:


> My confidence was based on the fact that DIRECTV 14 had been assigned a rocket by Arianespace and subsequently the rocket was reassigned to the Thor 7 launch. That is a clear indicator to me that a formal decision was made on the part of Arianespace to bump DIRECTV 14 as opposed to vagaries among salo's sources.
> 
> The rockets are usually launched in numeric order but VA218 was scrubbed because of a questions about Optus 10's readiness that have apparently been answered. That Optus 10's companions, Measat 3b and Jabiru 2 are being stored in Kourou probably forces that launch to proceed, albeit out of order.


It looks like VA-221 was at one time up for grabs and even earmarked for both/either/or Thor 7 and DirecTV14 based on one of Salo's previously posted schedules...

2014
early June 3 (TBD) 6 (TBD) - Measat 3b/Jabiru 2, Optus 10 (TBD) - Ariane 5 ECA (VA218) - Kourou ELA-3 - 21:29 21:27-22:03 (or May 28)
July 3 10 - O3b (4 sats) - Soyuz-STB/Fregat-MT (VS08) - Kourou ELS - 18:55:56
July 25 - ATV-5 Georges Lemaître - Ariane 5 ES (VA219) - Kourou ELA-3 - 01:44:34
August 21 - Galileo-FOC FM01 (Doresa), Galileo-FOC FM02 (Milena) - Soyuz-STB/Fregat-MT (VS09) - Kourou ELS
September - Intelsat 30/DLA 1 (TBD), Arsat 1 - Ariane 5 ECA (VA220) - Kourou ELA-3
*fourth quarter - Thor 7, Sicral-2/Syracuse-3C - Ariane 5 ECA (VA221) - Kourou ELA-3 (or 2015)*
November - IXV (suborbital launch) - Vega (VV04) - Kourou ZLV
November - Galileo-FOC FM03 (Adam), Galileo-FOC FM04 (Anastasia) - Soyuz-STB/Fregat-MT (VS10) - Kourou ELS
December - Galileo-FOC FM05 (Alba), Galileo-FOC FM06 (Oriana) - Soyuz-STB/Fregat-MT - Kourou ELS (or 2015)
*fourth quarter - DirecTV 14, GSAT-16 (TBD) - Ariane 5 ECA (VA221) - Kourou ELA-3 (or 2015)*
fourth quarter - Sicral-2/Syracuse-3C - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3 (or 2015)
end of year - Star One C4 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3 (or 2015)
TBD - Optus 10 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3 (or 2015)

...followed shortly thereafter by this post from Jester on the same page...

*Jester*:
VA218 confirmed for June 6th at 18:29 local
*VA221 swap, currently with Thor-7 and Sicral 2*

...and then this from Jester on the following page...

*Jester*:
Due to the issue with Optus 10, the following flights have changed to unconfirmed passengers.

VA218
VA220
VA221

Expect some re-shuffles

...and then it was exclusively associated with Thor 7 on Salo's subsequent schedule post. Then DirecTV 14 moved to the 2015 section on the schedule posted after that.

What does it all mean? It means I don't know, but I'm probably not the only one. It'll fly when it flies and based on what I'm seeing with other scheduled Arianespace launches this uncertainty and movement is more the rule than the exception.

Following the DirecTV launches at this point is more of an amusement than anything else. I'm not waiting on anything specific that hinges on it. Or if I am then at least I am blissfully unaware of it.


----------



## harsh

HarleyD said:


> It looks like VA-221 was at one time up for grabs and even earmarked for both/either/or Thor 7 and DirecTV14 based on one of Salo's previously posted schedules...


I speculate that the bump happened because GSAT 16 wasn't going to be ready but it is remotely possible that DIRECTV 14 was not 100% certain based on a literal read of the fine print. Since only Arianespace assigns rockets, they made a choice to revise the order; perhaps at ISRO's or DIRECTV's request.

Unless you believe that Arianespace is extorting or someone traded up with DIRECTV (and hence they were lying about doing everything possible), there's a reason for the change.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Unless you believe that Arianespace is extorting or someone traded up with DIRECTV (and hence they were lying about doing everything possible), there's a reason for the change.


Since none of us knows how the contract is written, such speculation is pointless.


----------



## HarleyD

harsh said:


> I speculate that the bump happened because GSAT 16 wasn't going to be ready but it is remotely possible that DIRECTV 14 was not 100% certain based on a literal read of the fine print. Since only Arianespace assigns rockets, they made a choice to revise the order; perhaps at ISRO's or DIRECTV's request.
> 
> Unless you believe that Arianespace is extorting or someone traded up with DIRECTV (and hence they were lying about doing everything possible), there's a reason for the change.


No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm sure pratical considerations are driving it. It's business. What are those practical considerations? Nobody who knows is saying. That's the rub and the genesis of all the guessing.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So in the end...there is no 100% guaranty as to when this sat will be launched and activated from the information posted to date here...just a fluid schedule situation.--- at least that's the public-facing reality -- speculation, assumptions, and document filings / estimates.


While this part of your assertion is undeniable, we can pretty well figure out when it isn't going to happen by and that may be just as important, if not more so, to those who are waiting for the floodgates to open wide and let some additional HD channels through.

Time will tell regardless of what DIRECTV knows or has planned. Such is the plight of any organization that subcontracts various aspects of a project.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> While this part of your assertion is undeniable, we can pretty well figure out when it isn't going to happen by and that may be just as important, if not more so, to those who are waiting for the floodgates to open wide and let some additional HD channels through. ...
> 
> 
> 
> But what real "flood" of pending HD channels is awaiting behind these "gates?"
> 
> We're pretty much scrapping the bottom of the barrel on new HD channels to add at this point and well into the rather extreme niche area.
Click to expand...




> harsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Time will tell regardless of what DIRECTV knows or has planned. Such is the plight of any organization that subcontracts various aspects of a project.
Click to expand...

What firm doesn't subcontract out for such big projects as satellite building and launching?

This isn't just a pork-barrel thing as these endeavors are way too big and complex for any one business or single source supplier to handle.


----------



## HarleyD

harsh said:


> While this part of your assertion is undeniable, we can pretty well figure out when it isn't going to happen by and that may be just as important, if not more so, to those who are waiting for the floodgates to open wide and let some additional HD channels through.
> 
> Time will tell regardless of what DIRECTV knows or has planned. Such is the plight of any organization that subcontracts various aspects of a project.


I think those folks are going to be disappointed if they're expecting a D10-like wave of programming when D14 and D15 go live. There simply aren't that many HD channels left to add and what remains is largely niche programming. Any high visibility adds aren't likely being held up by bandwidth.

Like I said, at this point following the progress to launch and then to going live is a distraction and an amusement. I don't anticipate them being transformational to the programming I can get. At least not immediately.


----------



## harsh

There are quite a few HD channels out there that DIRECTV doesn't already carry and some of them would fit well into DIRECTV's motif. Sportsman, Outdoor, MAVTV and WFN are two that come to mind. There are a number of movie channel candidates; especially the ones that aren't time shifts of other channels.

Certainly it won't be a rush of 20 or so channels (although it may be with sports alternates) but it will re-establish a creek bed that has been parched for a rather long time.


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> While this part of your assertion is undeniable, we can pretty well figure out when it isn't going to happen by and that may be just as important, if not more so, to those who are waiting for the floodgates to open wide and let some additional HD channels through.
> 
> Time will tell regardless of what DIRECTV knows or has planned. Such is the plight of any organization that subcontracts various aspects of a project.


Plight? Seriously you love doomsday.

There is no floodgates to open as no one has tons of Hi Definition they can add at this point. No one. A few bottom channels is all that's left for all the carrier's. The ones that general dont persuade anyone at all but could be nice to have.


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> There are quite a few HD channels out there that DIRECTV doesn't already carry and some of them would fit well into DIRECTV's motif. Sportsman, Outdoor, MAVTV and WFN are two that come to mind. There are a number of movie channel candidates; especially the ones that aren't time shifts of other channels.
> 
> Certainly it won't be a rush of 20 or so channels (although it may be with sports alternates) but it will re-establish a creek bed that has been parched for a rather long time.


There is no patch to be done if creek bed to re establish.

And directv isnt dish. They have all the alternates in Hi Definition already.


----------



## HarleyD

harsh said:


> There are quite a few HD channels out there that DIRECTV doesn't already carry and some of them would fit well into DIRECTV's motif. Sportsman, Outdoor, MAVTV and WFN are two that come to mind. There are a number of movie channel candidates; especially the ones that aren't time shifts of other channels.
> 
> Certainly it won't be a rush of 20 or so channels (although it may be with sports alternates) but it will re-establish a creek bed that has been parched for a rather long time.


That's a bit of a red herring list there. If they had HD carriage agreements with any of those channels they would be put up now. So if you want to fault them for not having negotiated those agreements yet then that's a legitimate point but it's another matter altogether. It really is irrelevant to the urgency and impact of the planned satellite launches.

I maintain my position that programming additions are not being staged and held up waiting for the new satellites.


----------



## Diana C

About the only channels that DirecTV has a contract for, but which are not broadcast, are Epix and Epix 2. Having had them available to me for the last 2 months on FiOS, I have to say DirecTV is not missing anything.



HarleyD said:


> ...I maintain my position that programming additions are not being staged and held up waiting for the new satellites.


This.


----------



## cypherx

I don't know... There was a huge Viacom debacle a year or two ago and out of that came nothing. Though when the local cable company renegotiated, Nick JR, Nicktoons and MTV2 were added in HD. DirecTV could always pull a Bright House Networks move, and simply add just about all the HD programming available in the US.

Though other bandwidth could be good for 4K and even spare capacity.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> There is no patch to be done if creek bed to re establish.


Then why are people still asking for HD channels that aren't carried and nothing is happening?


> And directv isnt dish. They have all the alternates in Hi Definition already.


They don't seem to have alternates for PAC-12, SEC and Longhorn yet.


----------



## harsh

Now is the time


Diana C said:


> About the only channels that DirecTV has a contract for, but which are not broadcast, are Epix and Epix 2. Having had them available to me for the last 2 months on FiOS, I have to say DirecTV is not missing anything.


Don't you suppose that their contracts for the conventional movie plexes cover all the channels in HD? I would think that having access to the specialty channels would bring more variety than having two copies of the mainstream channels from the subscriber's perspective.

There are three HD channels in the Epix four channel plex (Epix Drive-In is SD only). I'm looking forward to seeing if _Catching Fire_ is an improvement. The suite has been a failsafe for me given the apparent drought of new and interesting programming on the conventional plexes.

I suspect that there may be several other channels that they have the rights to that they aren't carrying for reasons other than "nobody wants them".

As with the satellite launch and the theories behind it, the inservice may or may not bring measureable HD channel additions. Time will tell.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Then why are people still asking for HD channels that aren't carried and nothing is happening?
> 
> 
> 
> The point is whatever the reasons, its not due to due to lack of satellite capacity to carry them.
> .... They don't seem to have alternates for PAC-12, SEC and Longhorn yet.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "alternates."

Alternate channels are used by RSNs to carry overflow programming from the main. Since DIRECTV don't even carry those RSNs yet (or if ever) how can they have alternates for them?


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> Alternate channels are used by RSNs to carry overflow programming from the main. Since DIRECTV don't even carry those RSNs yet (or if ever) how can they have alternates for them?


The faithful are assuring everyone that they will be carried by the start of the 2014-2015 season except, perhaps, for the PAC-12 ones that they insist nobody really wants at the obviously excessive (but ultimately undisclosed) cost anyway.

I find this humorous given all the talk about the importance of full-time HD on the various RSNs when the argument that HD (or even carriage) isn't necessary until the games start is so heavily leaned on.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Then why are people still asking for HD channels that aren't carried and nothing is happening...


Because DirecTV is run so as to profitable. Therefore, decisions about whether or not to carry a given channel in HD depends upon whether or not adding it increases revenue sufficiently to cover the cost. Even if DirecTV has the rights to carry a channel, actually adding it has an incremental cost based upon the number of subscribers that would have that channel available. For example, while DirecTV has had the right to carry the Epix multiplex, they would have to pay an additional fee for each subscriber that has the channel(s) available. Assuming it is not placed solely in its own add-on package, that means an increase in costs with no incremental revenue (again, unless they raise the cost the package in question at time they add Epix to it). Continuing with this example, it would most likely be available alone or in the premium movie package, like Showtime, HBO, etc.. Therefore, any new channel has to offer the prospects of attracting NEW customers to be worth it, or else be so important that subscribers might leave for lack of it. In the cae of Epix, there aren't that many cable systems that carry it either, so its lack doesn't have much impact.

Adding any channel is more than simply a matter of capacity and availability, it also has direct costs, indirect costs and opportunity costs. Any operator has to consider all three.



harsh said:


> ...They don't seem to have alternates for PAC-12, SEC and Longhorn yet.


Why should they? It doesn't look like they have lost many subscribers over these channels. Again, from DirecTV's perspective, these channels are not worth the asking price. Anyone that simply has to have these (or any other "missing") channels should look elsewhere.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> The faithful are assuring everyone that they will be carried by the start of the 2014-2015 season except, perhaps, for the PAC-12 ones that they insist nobody really wants at the obviously excessive (but ultimately undisclosed) cost anyway.
> 
> I find this humorous given all the talk about the importance of full-time HD on the various RSNs when the argument that HD (or even carriage) isn't necessary until the games start is so heavily leaned on.


OK, well the part of my post you quoted regarding carrying "alternates" has nothing to do with this.

And as pertaining to this thread, as I said whatever the reason(s) DIRECTV is not (or maybe yet) carrying those RSNs and other linear HD channels you cited earlier is not due to lack of satellite capacity of the current fleet.

But contractual as it will likely be even when the new birds go up and there will be a plenitude of bandwidth available for new HD channels.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Now is the time
> 
> Don't you suppose that their contracts for the conventional movie plexes cover all the channels in HD? I would think that having access to the specialty channels would bring more variety than having two copies of the mainstream channels from the subscriber's perspective.
> There are three HD channels in the Epix four channel plex (Epix Drive-In is SD only). I'm looking forward to seeing if _Catching Fire_ is an improvement. The suite has been a failsafe for me given the apparent drought of new and interesting programming on the conventional plexes.
> I suspect that there may be several other channels that they have the rights to that they aren't carrying for reasons other than "nobody wants them".
> 
> As with the satellite launch and the theories behind it, the inservice may or may not bring measureable HD channel additions. Time will tell.


Maybe the contracts cover all the "theme" channels, maybe not...neither of us have read the contracts. The point remains that if carrying a channel puts more money in DirecTV's coffers, or not carrying takes money away, the channel will be added. Otherwise, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.


----------



## HoTat2

Note of caution here folks;

I think we better get back to discussing issues directly pertaining to D14 and its launch and move this back and forth about programming to the HD anticipation thread or some other before the moderators warn us and start deleting posts here.


----------



## inkahauts

I know of several posts that should be deleted for being so far off its sad.

I personally am very curious to see if the new bird will have them broadcasting locals to every DMA. I think the one place they need a bit more bandwidth is spots for certain areas, and if the new bird will fix Utahans coverage area issues in the south.


----------



## James Long

HoTat2 said:


> Note of caution here folks;
> 
> I think we better get back to discussing issues directly pertaining to D14 and its launch and move this back and forth about programming to the HD anticipation thread or some other before the moderators warn us and start deleting posts here.


Sounds like a good idea to me. This is NOT the HD Anticipation thread. This is the D14 satellite launch anticipation thread.

:backtotop:


----------



## HarleyD

Minor Arianespace Launch Schedule updates from Salo this morning. Albeit minor ones.

DirecTV 14 is now listed as TBD and DirecTV 15 as first half of 2015...

*TBD - DirecTV 14 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
first half - DirecTV 15 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3*

No new launch vehicle assignments. VA-221, designated for the Thor7 payload is still the last one assigned but that launch has now "slipped" from Fourth-Quarter 2014 to "late" 2014.

They did manage to get one up too. VA-219 Ariane 5 ES launced successfully early July 29.


----------



## slice1900

In yesterday earnings call, when discussing 4K they mentioned they planned to have two new satellites operational in the next 18 months. So perhaps they anticipate the possibility for further slips for D15's launch that might bring its date of being fully operational to the end of next year? Which would imply D14 slipping into next year...

When talking about the additional capacity these satellites will enable it sounds more and more like RDBS will used for 4K. Perhaps not exclusively, but it be that customers getting 4K service would become among the few who need to worry about a possible LNB replacement. That would take a lot of load off the installers if no one's dish can currently receive it, since 4K uptake won't be anything like HD uptake was.


----------



## harsh

HarleyD said:


> Minor Arianespace Launch Schedule updates from Salo this morning. Albeit minor ones.


DIRECTV 15 has been mid 2015 since March 20th. Before that it was EOY 2014. The DIRECTV 14 change came on July 10th.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> In yesterday earnings call, when discussing 4K they mentioned they planned to have two new satellites operational in the next 18 months. So perhaps they anticipate the possibility for further slips for D15's launch that might bring its date of being fully operational to the end of next year? Which would imply D14 slipping into next year...


9 or 12 or 15 months from now are all within the next 18 months. What I parse out of this is that it could be as much as 18 months before both satellites are ready to go into service and DIRECTV isn't as drop dead certain as some insist about when the launches and in-service dates will be.

DIRECTV 14 seems a more likely candidate for immediate use of its RDBS payload as DIRECTV 15 appears to be intended, in large part, as a backup; the in-orbit spare that DIRECTV 12 was originally intended to be with coverage for pretty much any satellite in the fleet.


> When talking about the additional capacity these satellites will enable it sounds more and more like RDBS will used for 4K. Perhaps not exclusively, but it be that customers getting 4K service would become among the few who need to worry about a possible LNB replacement. That would take a lot of load off the installers if no one's dish can currently receive it, since 4K uptake won't be anything like HD uptake was.


This seems the most reasonable approach (as I noodled some time ago). Unfortunately, I suspect 4K won't be as compelling as 3D and we know how that went.


----------



## HarleyD

Things continue to slide on the Arianespace launch schedule.

The Thor 7 launch, which had been slated for the end of 2014 has not only now moved to TBD in 2015, its' launch vehicle assignment (VA-221) has also been scratched.

No updates for D14 or 15 but the fact that the launch that was ostensibly immediately before D14 has now slipped into next year does not bode well since that stuff tends to cascade. But the scratch of the launch vehicle from Thor 7 is puzzling. If not Thor 7 then who rides VA-221? Did Thor 7 slip because of issues at Arianespace or is there a problem with the Thor 7 (or it's companion) payload? Lots of unknowns. One could speculate that if they are considering reassigning VA-221...again...that it is a payload issue and not an Arianespace issue.

Maybe Thor 7 and D14 will flip flop again. Maybe Thor 7 will still go up on VA-221. Maybe another set of payloads leapfrogs them both and gets the VA-221 launch vehicle. Too much is unknown to say with authority, but one can engage in optimistic speculation. I know that kind of optimism rankles some folks but I will continue to play the game as I choose.

*2015*
early - Gokturk-1 - Vega - Kourou ZLV
early - O3b (4 sats) - Soyuz-STB/Fregat-MT - Kourou ELS
early - NBN CO 1A - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
first quarter - GSAT-16 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
April - Arsat 2 - Ariane 5 / Soyuz
May - LISA Pathfinder - Vega - Kourou ZLV
June - Sentinel-3B - Vega - Kourou ZLV
*first half - DirecTV 15 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3*
second quarter - Intelsat-34 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
July - ADM-Aeolus - Vega - Kourou ZLV
August - MSG-4/Meteosat-11 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
midyear - Measat-3c/Jabiru-1 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
midyear - GSAT-15 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
summer - TARANIS - Soyuz / Vega
second half - DIRECTV INNOVA/SKYMEXICO 1 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
second half - Arabsat-6B/Badr 7 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
September - Seosat-Ingenio - Vega - Kourou ZLV
late - DSN-1 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
end of year - NBN CO 1B - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
TBD - Galileo-FOC FM07 (Antonianna), Galileo-FOC FM08 (Andriana) - Soyuz-STB/Fregat-MT - Kourou ELS
TBD - Galileo-FOC FM09 (Liene), Galileo-FOC FM10 (Danielè) - Soyuz-STB/Fregat-MT - Kourou ELS
TBD - Galileo-FOC FM11 (Alizée), Galileo-FOC FM12 (Lisa), Galileo-FOC FM13 (Kimberley), Galileo-FOC FM14 (Tijmen) - Ariane 5 ES - Kourou ELA-3 (or December 2014)
TBD - Galileo-FOC FM15 (Nicole), Galileo-FOC FM16 (Zofia), Galileo-FOC FM17 (Alexandre), Galileo-FOC FM18 (Irina) - Ariane 5-ES - Kourou ELA-3
TBD - Galileo-FOC FM19 (Tara), Galileo-FOC FM20 (Samuel), Galileo-FOC FM21 (Anna), Galileo-FOC FM22 (Ellen) - Ariane 5-ES - Kourou ELA-3
*TBD - Thor 7, Sicral-2/Syracuse-3C - Ariane 5 ECA (VA221) - Kourou ELA-3 (or late 2014)
TBD - DirecTV 14 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3*
TBD - Star One C4 - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
TBD - EchoStar XVIII - Ariane 5 ECA - Kourou ELA-3
TBD - Hispasat AG1 - Ariane 5 ECA- Kourou ELA-3
TBD - Jabiru 1 - Ariane 5 ECA- Kourou ELA-3
TBD - Optsat - Vega - Kourou ZLV


----------



## inkahauts

Yeah maybe DIRECTV jumps forward and takes their spot. That'd be nice.


----------



## slice1900

I wonder how hard, if at all Directv is really pushing to move this up? They don't truly _need _the additional capacity. Sure, they can add a few channels that aren't available in HD and so forth, but there isn't anything major they can't provide because they're waiting on new satellites aside from 4K. And that's hardly something they need to get moving on ASAP.

They might have to apply for an extension of their extension on RDBS, since that ran only until the end of the February 2015; the way things are going neither satellite may make it. Given the slow pace of Arianespace launches and the fact no one else is broadcasting RDBS in the US yet, another extension would be easily granted. Maybe they should ask for more than 7 months next time, just in case


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> I wonder how hard, if at all Directv is really pushing to move this up? They don't truly _need _the additional capacity. Sure, they can add a few channels that aren't available in HD and so forth, but there isn't anything major they can't provide because they're waiting on new satellites aside from 4K. And that's hardly something they need to get moving on ASAP.
> 
> They might have to apply for an extension of their extension on RDBS, since that ran only until the end of the February 2015; the way things are going neither satellite may make it. Given the slow pace of Arianespace launches and the fact no one else is broadcasting RDBS in the US yet, another extension would be easily granted. Maybe they should ask for more than 7 months next time, just in case


Or the FCC should just grant complete waivers of the final RDBS milestones for D14 and 15 with the way things are going at Arianespace.


----------



## inkahauts

I think yet want it up. I think we will see a lot more on demand stuff an cinema Ppv channels lite up. I also think they want all locals and they need this sat to do it. Also doesn't this sat fix the locals issue in southern Utah?


----------



## HarleyD

HoTat2 said:


> Or the FCC should just grant complete waivers of the final RDBS milestones for D14 and 15 with the way things are going at Arianespace.


Which was proposed as an alternative in the extension requests.

Does anyone know if those requests for milestone extensions received final dispensations and what they were?


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> I think yet want it up. I think we will see a lot more on demand stuff an cinema Ppv channels lite up. I also think they want all locals and they need this sat to do it. Also doesn't this sat fix the locals issue in southern Utah?


I would guess the market for PPV is shrinking with a higher percentage of people having broadband fast enough for VOD (delayed or streaming) every year. PPV is more of a placeholder for spare bandwidth, I doubt it is a growing market for any provider.

Getting 100% locals coverage is of course something they want, but the affected markets are tiny, so it is hardly going to drive much revenue for them.

I wasn't saying they don't care at all, just that it isn't something they're likely to push Arianespace too hard for, and would be very unlikely to pay anything to move up in the launch order, or prevent being pushed down in the order. If one of their existing satellites started malfunctioning, I have a feeling we'd see a launch in the next two months, as Directv has the cash to buy up someone else's launch slot.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

slice1900 said:


> I would guess the market for PPV is shrinking with a higher percentage of people having broadband fast enough for VOD (delayed or streaming) every year. PPV is more of a placeholder for spare bandwidth, I doubt it is a growing market for any provider.
> 
> Getting 100% locals coverage is of course something they want, but the affected markets are tiny, so it is hardly going to drive much revenue for them.
> 
> I wasn't saying they don't care at all, just that it isn't something they're likely to push Arianespace too hard for, and would be very unlikely to pay anything to move up in the launch order, or prevent being pushed down in the order. If one of their existing satellites started malfunctioning, I have a feeling we'd see a launch in the next two months, as Directv has the cash to buy up someone else's launch slot.


cable still VOD that is not over broadband. Now they maybe able to use VOD slots for part time needs.

But what other stuff can be put into part time slots that not PPV movies?


----------



## HoTat2

HarleyD said:


> Which was proposed as an alternative in the extension requests.
> 
> Does anyone know if those requests for milestone extensions received final dispensations and what they were?


They were "Accepted for Public Filing" on 8/1;
http://licensing.fcc.gov/ibfsweb/ib.page.FetchPN?report_key=1055640

No notice of the FCC decision (or "Action Taken") on them yet ...


----------



## ladannen

Stupid question:
Are D14 and D15 even built yet? Siting in a hanger somewhere waiting for launch?


----------



## HoTat2

ladannen said:


> Stupid question:
> Are D14 and D15 even built yet? Siting in a hanger somewhere waiting for launch?


Yes, both are very near full construction with only final testing, some parts and assembly left to be done.

Both are scheduled to be released for delivery by the manufacturers sometime in September.

But therein lay the problem. It will be apparently be quite awhile before the satellites will actually ship to the Arianespace launch site at Kourou in French Guiana to begin processing for actual launch given the current backlog there.

Latest released letters of construction status and photos from Space Systems/Loral and Astrium SAS (their ADS facility) ;

View attachment 25202


View attachment 25203


----------



## cypherx

Wow those antenna testing chambers look awesome!

Wish I had higher resolution of that and in the D14 pdf, a picture where I didn't have to tilt my head on the side.


----------



## slice1900

So I guess Directv never had a chance of making the original planned launch date for D14 since it is only going to be delivered to the launch site next month. Maybe that's why it was pushed off to TBD, they don't want to commit to a scheduled launch for it when it is behind schedule in construction. Maybe when it arrives on site it'll move off TBD and get assigned to the queue somewhere.


cypherx - Adobe Reader lets you rotate images, so you shouldn't have to turn your head on its side. No help for the resolution though, you'll need to find one of those magic programs movie cops have access to that can magically increase resolution to see tiny details in low resolution digital images :rotfl:


----------



## cypherx

Eh google image search "satellite antenna testing chamber" seemed to do the trick.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Yeah maybe DIRECTV jumps forward and takes their spot. That'd be nice.


At around 4000Kg, Thor 7 is too light to be a primary and too heavy to share a ride with DIRECTV 14 or DIRECTV 15.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> Yes, they have both been fully constructed with only a few minor finishing touches or final testing left to be done.
> Both are scheduled for delivery to the Arianespace launch site at Kourou in French Guiana sometime in September.


You present an interesting interpretation of what the DIRECTV 14 letter says.

Literally, the letter says that DIRECTV 14 won't be complete until sometime this month absent a "final component" that was undergoing testing at the writing of the letter.

Arianespace protocol dictates that the satellites not arrive more than 29 days in advance of launch. The delivery must be scheduled after the launch date is set such that the launch timeline is observed.

I think it awfully likely that:
1. Mr. Celli isn't lying about the progress of DIRECTV 14
2. neither bird will ship this year
3. they won't ship less than a month apart.


----------



## Diana C

In both cases the letters state that the satellites will be *ready to ship* in August for D14 and September for D15. That does not mean that they will be shipped to the launch site at that time. They will be "delivered" (which just means that DirecTV takes title of the spacecraft) when they actually ship. They will ship when a launch vehicle is assigned, with sufficient lead time to do spacecraft/booster integration and testing. Until then, they will be stored by the manufacturer.



harsh said:


> ...Arianespace protocol dictates that the satellites not arrive more than 30 days in advance of launch...


Actually, I think the policy is that the satellite be delivered no more than 30 days before the start of launch preparations (such as spacecraft integration), which can take several weeks themselves.


----------



## HoTat2

OK, my previous post edited to reflect more accurately the content of the letters ...


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> Actually, I think the policy is that the satellite be delivered no more than 30 days before the start of launch preparations (such as spacecraft integration), which can take several weeks themselves.


Actually, there is very little truth to what you said in this particular sentence.

I quote the Ariane 5 User's Manual that says in section 7.5.5.1:


> The Spacecraft campaign duration, from equipment arrival in French Guiana until, and including, departure from Guiana, shall not exceed 32 calendar days (29 days before launch and day of launch, and 3 days after launch).
> 
> The Spacecraft shall be available for combined operations 11 working days prior to the Launch, at the latest, as it will be agreed in the operational documentation.


I note that this is the timeline for a "typical" Ariane 5 launch and since DIRECTV 14 and DIRECTV 15 will likely both be two bird launches, they qualify as typical. Arrival should be no earlier than T-29 days.

This is why the Optus 10 delay caused such a stir. Measat 3b and Jabiru 2 had already arrived in Kourou for a late May launch and Optus 10 waved off in mid-May for what is now a September 11th launch. In the intervening period, Arianespace has had to warehouse the two timely birds.


----------



## Diana C

I read that section differently, but it doesn't really matter. In any case, when we hear the satellite is enroute that will indicate the launch is imminent.


----------



## damondlt

I just saw a post in the Transponder maps thread a launch date of October? 
But it doesn't say Directv 14. 
Maybe you guys could shed some light on what the poster was claiming?


----------



## studechip

damondlt said:


> I just saw a post in the Transponder maps thread a launch date of October?
> But it doesn't say Directv 14.
> Maybe you guys could shed some light on what the poster was claiming?


http://sslmda.com/html/satexp/isdla1_2.html

It took about 5 seconds to Google this information.


----------



## damondlt

studechip said:


> http://sslmda.com/html/satexp/isdla1_2.html
> 
> It took about 5 seconds to Google this information.


Sorry to bother you.
Next time I'll Google everything and I won't have to post here then.


----------



## Skyboss

longrider said:


> I have not seen this mentioned recently but we cant forget that some of the capacity being launched over the next couple years will be needed to replace capacity on satellites reaching EOL. It is not all for new channels by any stretch...


The only SATs near end of life are MPEG 2 birds sending down SD, so its not really an issue.


----------



## JosephB

Skyboss said:


> The only SATs near end of life are MPEG 2 birds sending down SD, so its not really an issue.


Except that they are nowhere near being in a position to allow their Ku/MPEG-2 SD capacity to drop or go away.


----------



## HoTat2

JosephB said:


> Except that they are nowhere near being in a position to allow their Ku/MPEG-2 SD capacity to drop or go away.


Yeah;

As been posted before earlier in this thread from a somewhat recent DIRECTV investor's conference, barring anything catastrophic of course, the 101, 110, and 119 Ku birds (D4S, D8, D9S, D5, and D7S) still have a good amount of longevity left in them.


----------



## damondlt

And 2017 and 18 are only 3 and 4 years away.
Not sure why so many don't feel D14 and 15 are standard routine maintenance. 
For SW1 and SW2

Directv is going to plan a few years ahead, they aren't going to wait till the end of a satellites expected life span to replace a satellite. 
They need That addtional fuel to place the satellite out of geo orbit when it time for when its decommissioned. 

They aren't going to wait until a satellite stops responding.
Sure it may bring addtional capacity, but they are also going to be replacements come 3-5 years.


----------



## slice1900

damondlt said:


> And 2017 and 18 are only 3 and 4 years away.
> Not sure why so many don't feel D14 and 15 are standard routine maintenance.
> For SW1 and SW2
> 
> Directv is going to plan a few years ahead, they aren't going to wait till the end of a satellites expected life span to replace a satellite.
> They need That addtional fuel to place the satellite out of geo orbit when it time for when its decommissioned.
> 
> They aren't going to wait until a satellite stops responding.
> Sure it may bring addtional capacity, but they are also going to be replacements come 3-5 years.


The fuel budgets shown in that Directv presentation are exclusive of the reserve required to boost into a disposal orbit, so the only satellite that may run out of fuel before 2020 is D4S. Its only function is to share spot beam duty with D9S at 101 (i.e. SD locals) Directv will almost certainly have ended SD/MPEG2 service by then, so there is no need to replace D4S.

D14 can replace SW2 at 99, as it has spot beams. However, D15 can't replace SW1 at 103, because it does not have spot beam capability.

There's never a reason why you'd want to de-orbit a working satellite, so if SW2 is taken out of service after D14's launch, Directv will keep it around as it could serve several useful functions. It could serve as a backup for SW1 (or D14's) spot beams, or it could move to 101 and take over for the Ka spot beams Directv uses for their internal needs (i.e., not received by customers)

A nice benefit of replacing the Spaceway satellites for spot beams is that they make inefficient use of the spectrum due to their 62.5 MHz wide transponders. D14 will be able to provide more spot beams than SW2, so Directv can cover the last dozen or so markets that have only SD locals.


----------



## inkahauts

They can also focus the spaceways on places like PR and alaska or Hi, and maybe be better off that way to in the long run...


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> *The fuel budgets shown in that Directv presentation are exclusive of the reserve required to boost into a disposal orbit*, so the only satellite that may run out of fuel before 2020 is D4S. Its only function is to share spot beam duty with D9S at 101 (i.e. SD locals) Directv will almost certainly have ended SD/MPEG2 service by then, so there is no need to replace D4S.
> 
> D14 can replace SW2 at 99, as it has spot beams. However, D15 can't replace SW1 at 103, because it does not have spot beam capability.
> 
> There's never a reason why you'd want to de-orbit a working satellite, so if SW2 is taken out of service after D14's launch, Directv will keep it around as it could serve several useful functions. It could serve as a backup for SW1 (or D14's) spot beams, or it could move to 101 and take over for the Ka spot beams Directv uses for their internal needs (i.e., not received by customers)
> 
> A nice benefit of replacing the Spaceway satellites for spot beams is that they make inefficient use of the spectrum due to their 62.5 MHz wide transponders. D14 will be able to provide more spot beams thatell need for stan SW2, so Directv can cover the last dozen or so markets that have only SD locals.


I think it's incorrect statement. Pretty sure it's fuel need for station keeping in orbit's position.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> I think it's incorrect statement. Pretty sure it's fuel need for station keeping in orbit's position.


Sure you are reading that correctly P. Smith?

That sounds like what slice is saying.

The fuel budgets listed in the presentation are "exclusive" of the fuel reserved for boosting the satellite to a disposal orbit at it's EOL.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> They can also focus the spaceways on places like PR and alaska or Hi, and maybe be better off that way to in the long run...


D14 has a spotbeam designated for Hawaii...

Not sure if it makes any difference for spotbeams, why do you think they may be "better off that way in the long run"?


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> D14 has a spotbeam designated for *Hawaii*...
> 
> Not sure if it makes any difference for spotbeams, why do you think they may be "better off that way in the long run"?


To note though;

While D14 has spotbeams for Hawaii, Alaska, and PR. According to the FCC docs, the Hawaii spot "C01" is only to mirror nationals carried on the CONUS tps. 9-16.

Not for any LiLs.


----------



## damondlt

HoTat2 said:


> Sure you are reading that correctly P. Smith?
> 
> That sounds like what slice is saying.
> 
> The fuel budgets listed in the presentation are "exclusive" of the fuel reserved for boosting the satellite to a disposal orbit at it's EOL.


Exactly, so what happends in 2017 and 18? 
Is directv 16 and 17 going to be launched and ready?


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> Sure you are reading that correctly P. Smith?
> 
> That sounds like what slice is saying.
> 
> The fuel budgets listed in the presentation are "exclusive" of the fuel reserved for boosting the satellite to a disposal orbit at it's EOL.


Usually fuel budget doesn't include special reserve for move the sat to graveyard. I'm reading it as it designed.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> Usually fuel budget doesn't include special reserve for move the sat to graveyard. I'm reading it as it designed.


No, I meant are you sure you were reading slice's post earlier correctly because that appears to be exactly what he was saying at the time when you called it an "incorrect statement?"


----------



## HoTat2

damondlt said:


> Exactly, so what happends in 2017 and 18?
> Is directv 16 and 17 going to be launched and ready?


I don't think the bar-graphs of satellites where the "fuel life" is greater than the "design life" means they need be replaced by the later deadline.

Only that the manufacturer's design guarantee for the spacecraft's various systems reliability expires.


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> No, I meant are you sure you were reading slice's post earlier correctly because that appears to be exactly what he was saying at the time when you called it an "incorrect statement?"


May be ... anyway, no need to mix the fuel budget and specially provisioned separate fuel for sat's EOL maneuver. The plot doesn't include it and there is no reason to mention it in any conjunction or not.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> May be ... anyway, no need to mix the fuel budget and specially provisioned separate fuel for sat's EOL maneuver. The plot doesn't include it and there is no reason to mention it in any conjunction or not.


The reason I brought it up was to reply to damondlt's incorrect assertion that they'd need that excess fuel shown beyond the design lifetime for boosting to the graveyard orbit.


----------



## slice1900

damondlt said:


> Exactly, so what happends in 2017 and 18?
> Is directv 16 and 17 going to be launched and ready?


Nothing happens in 2017 and 2018, they don't have any issues that need to be taken care of in that timeframe unless one of the satellites has a hardware malfunction. Given that the coverage currently provided by SW1 and SW2 (which is spot beams only) will be provided by D14 @99 and SW2 @103, they'll have SW1 left over as a "spare" that could take over that duty should SW2 suffer an unexpected failure. It is highly unlikely that both SW1 and SW2 would both suffer an unexpected failure.

There is no need to replace either one in 2017 or 2018 just because the end of the design lifetime expires. Most satellites exceed their design lifetime, some by quite a bit. It is usually fuel running out or solar panel/battery issues that don't give them a big enough charge to provide the necessary "overnight" power to operate in the Earth's shadow that causes them to be retired. However, both have plenty of fuel, as they're being used well below their design capability their power needs are modest and the solar panels and batteries will likely be good for a very long time to come.


----------



## LameLefty

I've posted this same comment before (in this same thread, no doubt, months or more ago), but every week you keep a spacecraft in service beyond the design lifetime, you're essentially playing with borrowed time. Satellite operators, aerospace manufacturers and space agencies all realize it. Direct is a savvy business. They realize it too. Given that, it's a fair assumption that they have plans (and contingency plans and probably backup plans for those) about what to do once these EOLs come and pass while the vehicles remain in use.


----------



## damondlt

LameLefty said:


> I've posted this same comment before (in this same thread, no doubt, months or more ago), but every week you keep a spacecraft in service beyond the design lifetime, you're essentially playing with borrowed time. Satellite operators, aerospace manufacturers and space agencies all realize it. Direct is a savvy business. They realize it too. Given that, it's a fair assumption that they have plans (and contingency plans and probably backup plans for those) about what to do once these EOLs come and pass while the vehicles remain in use.


Yep I agree.


----------



## damondlt

slice1900 said:


> Nothing happens in 2017 and 2018, they don't have any issues that need to be taken care of in that timeframe unless one of the satellites has a hardware malfunction. Given that the coverage currently provided by SW1 and SW2 (which is spot beams only) will be provided by D14 @99 and SW2 @103, they'll have SW1 left over as a "spare" that could take over that duty should SW2 suffer an unexpected failure. It is highly unlikely that both SW1 and SW2 would both suffer an unexpected failure.
> 
> There is no need to replace either one in 2017 or 2018 just because the end of the design lifetime expires. Most satellites exceed their design lifetime, some by quite a bit. It is usually fuel running out or solar panel/battery issues that don't give them a big enough charge to provide the necessary "overnight" power to operate in the Earth's shadow that causes them to be retired. However, both have plenty of fuel, as they're being used well below their design capability their power needs are modest and the solar panels and batteries will likely be good for a very long time to come.


I will say it again. DIRECTV is not going to wait for a failure. 
They are not going to run satellites past it's expected lifespan without a backup.

But you keep believing otherwise, and keep holding out for what ever it is you think D14 and 15 are going to bring.

massive 4K? Doubt it
another massive HD channel launch? Doubt that.

More like routine maintenance, and better capacity instead of the cramming they currently have going on.
And don't forget Directv 10 was also running on its back up systems as well.


----------



## damondlt

Here is a link for you.
http://blog.solidsignal.com/content.php/1412-Which-will-come-first-DIRECTV-s-new-satellite-or-their-4K-channels


----------



## inkahauts

You make it sound like you think if they lost one satelite today that they'd be in trouble. I suspect they could lose any one sat and have zero issues keeping service going. But that'd make them jump faster build a new backup replacement unit. 

I agree with lefty they know what they are doing. But I'd guess that d15 is part replacement part expansion and that we will hear about the next satelites in the next couple years for bigger replacements. 

I would not be surprised if what they did with the space ways was use them in conjunction with d14 and such till the very end to save fuel on d14 since it appears d14 could cover everything from the space ways by itself. 

Lefty? Would that make sense for a company to do?

Not to mention how many of these birds can now do more frequency ranges. Ka ku and bss. So they are a lot more interchangeable it seems going forward too. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

inkahauts said:


> You make it sound like you think if they lost one satelite today that they'd be in trouble. I suspect they could lose any one sat and have zero issues keeping service going. But that'd make them jump faster build a new backup replacement unit.
> 
> I agree with lefty they know what they are doing. But I'd guess that d15 is part replacement part expansion and that we will hear about the next satelites in the next couple years for bigger replacements.
> 
> I would not be surprised if what they did with the space ways was use them in conjunction with d14 and such till the very end *to save fuel on d14* since it appears d14 could cover everything from the space ways by itself.
> 
> Lefty? Would that make sense for a company to do?
> 
> Not to mention how many of these birds can now do more frequency ranges. Ka ku and bss. So they are a lot more interchangeable it seems going forward too.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'd say reduced wear on D14's systems by load sharing with the Spaceways perhaps.

But the only way to really conserve station keeping fuel supply of a geostationary satellite is to allow it to drift N<--->S + E<--->W somewhat around the equator in the characteristic figure-8 pattern of an inclined orbit.

I seriously doubt that would be acceptable for DIRECTV service. Particularly so for subscribers receiving Ka band signals.


----------



## inkahauts

Yeah battery life is what i should have said. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

damondlt said:


> massive 4K? Doubt it
> another massive HD channel launch? Doubt that.


You can believe what you want to believe, but D14 opens up the entire Ka hi band for CONUS from 99, which Directv is not using at all. That's not replacement, that's expansion. Both D14 and D15 open up the RDBS bands from 99 and 103, which Directv is not using at all either. That's not replacement, that's expansion.

Whether existing satellites are retired by the presence of D14 and D15 is irrelevant to their ability to expand into new bands that are currently unused. That's a ton of additional capacity, quite a bit more actually than that currently used for CONUS HD!

It isn't known whether current dishes can receive RDBS (SWM LNBs perhaps, legacy LNBs definitely not) so it may be used for niche content only since they don't want to replace 20 million dishes. For example, international programming and 4K, but every Slimline dish is already able to receive the new Ka hi CONUS transponders from 99 that D14 will provide. That can be used to expand HD. I'm not sure in what way, since there aren't a whole lot of HD channels worth adding. So probably a combination of some additions, as well as increased quality.

"Increased quality" is another way of making themselves more resilient to failure. They could lose any of their HD satellite fleet, and if they weren't able to cover the transponders it provides they could provide everything they had using a reduced number, by broadcasting fewer PPV channels and reducing quality somewhat (i.e. down to approximately where it is now) Backup capability isn't only about having spare satellites sitting idle in orbit waiting for something to fail. That's a pretty wasteful way of providing it, actually.

They will have the bandwidth to provide "massive 4K", but I don't think there will be all that much 4K content available for them to offer. They'll be ready in case there is, though.


----------



## inkahauts

All true but I still think getting all 119 and especially all 95 onto the three core locations is a big deal. 

As for my explanation of the space ways. Sure the d14 will have one transponder to duplicate the conus beams but why use it till you have to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

I agree getting away from the 95* dish will be a good thing for everyone, getting away from 110/119 will be nice too - be interesting to see if they even bother to replace those satellites or abandon those positions.

I wonder if the only thing worth doing from 110/119 is parking an old satellite in those locations as long as it keeps operating, just to improve their competitive position by denying the use of those transponders to Dish.


----------



## inkahauts

PR gets stuff from there too dont they? Maybe they coudl eventually do the same with 95 making it all HI and alaska... who knows...


----------



## damondlt

slice1900 said:


> You can believe what you want to believe, but D14 opens up the entire Ka hi band for CONUS from 99, which Directv is not using at all. That's not replacement, that's expansion. Both D14 and D15 open up the RDBS bands from 99 and 103, which Directv is not using at all either. That's not replacement, that's expansion.
> 
> Whether existing satellites are retired by the presence of D14 and D15 is irrelevant to their ability to expand into new bands that are currently unused. That's a ton of additional capacity, quite a bit more actually than that currently used for CONUS HD!
> 
> It isn't known whether current dishes can receive RDBS (SWM LNBs perhaps, legacy LNBs definitely not) so it may be used for niche content only since they don't want to replace 20 million dishes. For example, international programming and 4K, but every Slimline dish is already able to receive the new Ka hi CONUS transponders from 99 that D14 will provide. That can be used to expand HD. I'm not sure in what way, since there aren't a whole lot of HD channels worth adding. So probably a combination of some additions, as well as increased quality.
> 
> "Increased quality" is another way of making themselves more resilient to failure. They could lose any of their HD satellite fleet, and if they weren't able to cover the transponders it provides they could provide everything they had using a reduced number, by broadcasting fewer PPV channels and reducing quality somewhat (i.e. down to approximately where it is now) Backup capability isn't only about having spare satellites sitting idle in orbit waiting for something to fail. That's a pretty wasteful way of providing it, actually.
> 
> They will have the bandwidth to provide "massive 4K", but I don't think there will be all that much 4K content available for them to offer. They'll be ready in case there is, though.


Again you believe what you want, I'll believe the facts.
Fact is D14 is to take the load off D10, and provide addtional space and backup in case of catastrophic failure. 
No one said it's going to sit up there idling waiting for a break down. 
Its going to take the load off the already crammed satellites.

Obviously they are in no hurry to launch it, since there is really no dying need to add expansion.

They have 3-4 years when it will need to be there.

And the 95 is never going away, they already have a launch date for another satellite going there This year, before Directv14.


----------



## HoTat2

damondlt said:


> Again you believe what you want, I'll believe the facts.
> *Fact is D14 is to take the load off D10, and provide addtional space and backup in case of catastrophic failure.*
> No one said it's going to sit up there idling waiting for a break down.
> Its going to take the load off the already crammed satellites.
> 
> Obviously they are in no hurry to launch it, since there is really no dying need to add expansion.
> 
> They have 3-4 years when it will need to be there.
> 
> *And the 95 is never going away, they already have a launch date for another satellite going there This year, before Directv14*.


Couple of points here;

D10's load has already been considerably lightened due to its delicate condition. The latest TPN maps show only 57 channels carried on it's 14 CONUS tpns. (i.e. "103cb") and over 30% of those are PPVs. And for all we know D12 may be already assuming most if not all of it's spotbeam duties (i.e. tpns. 15-24 of "103s")

The upcoming D15 can way more than adsorb this and D12 with backup from the Spaceways can well supply all spotbeam needs from 103w.

Also this "another satellite" destined for 95w you speak of is "ISDLA 1" to be followed later by ISDLA 2, and has no payload capability to support the WD service to the U.S., thus leading to the speculation that the service is likely moving off 95w to somewhere on the core 99w-103w group.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> The upcoming D15 can way more than adsorb this and D12 with backup from the Spaceways can well supply all spotbeam needs from 103w.


I'm betting on the idea that DIRECTV 15 is the "in-orbit spare" that DIRECTV 12 was supposed to be before DIRECTV 10 came up lame. It appears to have capacity to replace any satellite in the fleet.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> I'm betting on the idea that DIRECTV 15 is the "in-orbit spare" that DIRECTV 12 was supposed to be before DIRECTV 10 came up lame. It appears to have capacity to replace any satellite in the fleet.


D15 can replace any CONUS capacity, but has no spot beams. I'm sure RDBS was also one of the reasons they put it at 103, since D12's RDBS payload consists of four spot beams that are/were probably used for testing only.

If there's a failure what goes where to replace it will depend on what is needed. They'll be pretty well covered at 99 and 103, the only thing that might cause D15 to move from 103 is if they lost D8 or D9S to a micrometeorite or some other type of sudden unexpected failure. Even then, either could serve the entire CONUS Ku load. They wouldn't be able to cover the Ka spot beams they use for internal backhauling, but they could probably lease some fiber capacity and do that on the ground.

If they lost the satellite at 110 or 119 perhaps they'd move D4S, or maybe they'd say "oops, too bad" and do without. Moving something as capable as D15 to provide 3 tpns to PR from 110 or only 7 CONUS tpns from 119 would be a huge waste of resources.


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> I'm betting on the idea that DIRECTV 15 is the "in-orbit spare" that DIRECTV 12 was supposed to be before DIRECTV 10 came up lame. It appears to have capacity to replace any satellite in the fleet.


You must realize that d12 was never meant to only be an in orbit spare for its entire life.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

damondlt said:


> Again you believe what you want, I'll believe the facts.
> Fact is D14 is to take the load off D10, and provide addtional space and backup in case of catastrophic failure.
> No one said it's going to sit up there idling waiting for a break down.
> Its going to take the load off the already crammed satellites.
> 
> Obviously they are in no hurry to launch it, since there is really no dying need to add expansion.
> 
> They have 3-4 years when it will need to be there.
> 
> And the 95 is never going away, they already have a launch date for another satellite going there This year, before Directv14.


Crammed? Maybe fill but I wouldn't call it crammed. That implies it's do something it wasn't meant to.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## doctor j

Interesting info in DATA Stream today.
A NEW DMA MKT 36 NET 547 Charlottesville, VA has 5 HD LIL channels in *TEST.
This is the first DMA movement in over 1 year.
"Others" will evaluate details to determine if there is D14 info or "room' is being made on one of the Spaceways etc.

Will follow weekly to see if other DMA's come onboard or when Charlottesville may go "LIVE".

Doctor j


----------



## slice1900

doctor j said:


> Interesting info in DATA Stream today.
> A NEW DMA MKT 36 NET 547 Charlottesville, VA has 5 HD LIL channels in *TEST.
> This is the first DMA movement in over 1 year.
> "Others" will evaluate details to determine if there is D14 info or "room' is being made on one of the Spaceways etc.
> 
> Will follow weekly to see if other DMA's come onboard or when Charlottesville may go "LIVE".
> 
> Doctor j


When they put something in "TEST" in the data stream does it mean something is actually broadcasting, or is it just metadata at this point? If they're able to do it now and this isn't just jumping the gun on the D14 launch, one wonders why they weren't able to do it several years ago.


----------



## Diana C

damondlt said:


> I will say it again. DIRECTV is not going to wait for a failure.
> They are not going to run satellites past it's expected lifespan without a backup.
> 
> But you keep believing otherwise, and keep holding out for what ever it is you think D14 and 15 are going to bring.
> 
> massive 4K? Doubt it
> another massive HD channel launch? Doubt that.
> 
> More like routine maintenance, and better capacity instead of the cramming they currently have going on.
> And don't forget Directv 10 was also running on its back up systems as well.


Also, DirecTV has contracted with EADS Astrium for another satellite after DirecTV-15. This as yet unnamed satellite (probably DirecTV-16) was contracted in 2013 and is scheduled for delivery in 2016, so it would be in service right around the 2017-18 time frame.


----------



## doctor j

slice1900 said:


> When they put something in "TEST" in the data stream does it mean something is actually broadcasting, or is it just metadata at this point? If they're able to do it now and this isn't just jumping the gun on the D14 launch, one wonders why they weren't able to do it several years ago.


In TEST likely just data instructions for the receivers to know where to "look".
Later can be hidden except for special decoder cards.
Analysis ongoing as to what the present information means.
I'm just happy to report some movement on completing the last 13 orphan DMAs

Doctor j


----------



## yosoyellobo

In theory what is the minimum number of satellite needed to provide coverage to the entire continental USA?


----------



## LameLefty

yosoyellobo said:


> In theory what is the minimum number of satellite needed to provide coverage to the entire continental USA?


Your question needs more context or detail. What KIND of coverage? LIL? CONUS? HD or SD? Et cetera.


----------



## yosoyellobo

LameLefty said:


> Your question needs more context or detail. What KIND of coverage? LIL? CONUS? HD or SD? Et cetera.


I was just wondering if it was possible with some future technology to provide everything in one satellite. With what we have now could it be done with three?


----------



## woj027

whats the functional difference between D-14 and D-15? I've read that their payloads are different. How different? What purpose does that serve?


----------



## HoTat2

woj027 said:


> whats the functional difference between D-14 and D-15? I've read that their payloads are different. How different? What purpose does that serve?


Briefly, D14 will take advantage of the virtually unused Ka high Band spectrum (19.7-20.2 GHz downlink) at 99w.

It's payload will have 8 spotbeam transponder channels frequency reused over 47 spotbeams to supply LiLs to various local markets along with feeding mirrored nationals to the Hawaii and PR spotbeams as well. Look for these to show up as transponders 1-8 on the "99s" signal level screen.

D14 will carry 16 CONUS beam transponders for national programming. Look for these to likely display as transponders 9-24 on a new "99ca" signal level screen. These are essentially a duplicate of the CONUS beam payload on D12 (or "103ca") at 103w.

D14 will also carry a Reverse DBS band (17.3-17.7 GHz downlink) payload designated "RB-1" comprising 18 CONUS beam transponders as well as mirroring them to the HI and PR spotbeams. Look for these require a future new LNB to receive and likely display on a new S.S. screen as well. 
D15 is to be a multi-position satellite that will normally be stationed at 103w as its primary slot. It will have no spotbeams for LiLs, save for two to HI. and PR, but only for mirrored CONUS nationals.

It will have a total of 38 Ka band CONUS beam transponders comprising 24 on the Ka high band and 14 on the Ka low one. Of these any combination from the two sets can be active up to a maximum of 24 at any one time.

D15 will also carry a standard Ku band (12.2-12.7 GHz downlink) payload of 32 CONUS transponders for use at 101, 110, or 119 if necessary. However this payload will be inactive for its initial deployment.

Also as with D14, D15 will carry a RDBS band payload called "RB-2" comprised of 18 CONUS beam transponders feeding a CONUS beam and the HI and PR spotbeams with those mirrored 18 channels as well.

That's it in a nutshell ...


----------



## damondlt

Don't forget , there is only so many licenses at each orbital location the FCC allows. You can have as many satellites as you want, doesn't mean you can have 64 active tps.
I'm fairly sure it's only 32.
And not sure if that includes spotbeams tp, but I'm sure it does.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> Also, DirecTV has contracted with EADS Astrium for another satellite after DirecTV-15. This as yet unnamed satellite (probably DirecTV-16) was contracted in 2013 and is scheduled for delivery in 2016, so it would be in service right around the 2017-18 time frame.


Any more it is somewhat likely to be a DIRECTV LA bird (although DLA1, the next DIRECTV satellite to launch, may be enough for now).


----------



## harsh

Doing some weight calculations on possible satellite pairings yesterday and it seems that DIRECTV 15 is good to go with GSAT 15 but DIRECTV 14 may be too heavy for the bird that it was once paired with, GSAT 16.

It is my understanding that the useful payload limit of the Ariane 5 ECA is 9.6 metric tons. Since ISRO announced that GSAT 15 would launch soon, it seems likely that DIRECTV 15 would be its co-load.

If the true limit is actually 10 metric tons then DIRECTV 14 could go with either of the GSAT birds.

DIRECTV 14 launch mass = 6.502 metric tons (SSL 1300)
DIRECTV 15 launch mass = 6.300 metric tons (Eurostar 3000)
GSAT 15 launch mass = 3.200 metric tons (I3000)
GSAT 16 launch mass = 3.400 metric tons (I3000)


Note that I spelled out the unit of measure because the whole concept of tons can be confusing.

US ton (short ton) = 2000 pounds
UK ton (long ton) = 2240 pounds (has something to do with "hundredweight" being 112 pounds)
tonne (metric ton) = 2204 pounds = 1000kg


----------



## HarleyD

harsh said:


> Any more it is somewhat likely to be a DIRECTV LA bird (although DLA1, the next DIRECTV satellite to launch, may be enough for now).


DLA1 is only the first of two that DirecTV contracted to lease from Intelsat...

_"Intelsat will provide services on two new hybrid C- and Ku-band satellites, Intelsat 30 and Intelsat 31, each containing 72 transponders. DTVLA will use the Ku-band payloads to expand its current DTH entertainment offerings and provide backup and restoration services._

_The two satellites are scheduled for launch in 2014 and 2015, respectively, and will be co-located with Intelsat's Galaxy 3C satellite at 95°W. DTVLA has provided service via Galaxy 3C since the satellite was launched in 2002. DTVLA plans to utilize the satellites for their entire 15-year lifetime."_


----------



## inkahauts

damondlt said:


> Don't forget , there is only so many licenses at each orbital location the FCC allows. You can have as many satellites as you want, doesn't mean you can have 64 active tps.
> I'm fairly sure it's only 32.
> And not sure if that includes spotbeams tp, but I'm sure it does.


Pretty sure it's all about bandwidth and not transponders in the end. They could make larger or smaller tp bandwidths. Just look at the space ways for that. They tested using "one" transponder for entire bandwidth for entire satellite for conus. (Wasn't designed for that and it didn't go well enough hence using it for spots)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

yosoyellobo said:


> I was just wondering if it was possible with some future technology to provide everything in one satellite. With what we have now could it be done with three?


If they made the satellites big enough (to have room for a lot more spot beam transponders and have solar panels large enough to power everything) they could have three satellites, one at 99, one at 101 and one at 103, that could provide everything they offer today (there is a bit of stuff at 119 and international stuff on 95, but I'll ignore that since they may go away down the road)

Of course then they'd have no backup. If you want no interruption you need three similar satellites as in orbit spares. At that point you have six satellites, which isn't all that different from what Directv has now at those locations (2 at 99, 3 at 101 with one barely used, and 3 at 103)


----------



## yosoyellobo

slice1900 said:


> If they made the satellites big enough (to have room for a lot more spot beam transponders and have solar panels large enough to power everything) they could have three satellites, one at 99, one at 101 and one at 103, that could provide everything they offer today (there is a bit of stuff at 119 and international stuff on 95, but I'll ignore that since they may go away down the road)
> 
> Of course then they'd have no backup. If you want no interruption you need three similar satellites as in orbit spares. At that point you have six satellites, which isn't all that different from what Directv has now at those locations (2 at 99, 3 at 101 with one barely used, and 3 at 103)


Good info thanks.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> Pretty sure it's all about bandwidth and not transponders in the end. They could make larger or smaller tp bandwidths. Just look at the space ways for that. They tested using "one" transponder for entire bandwidth for entire satellite for conus. (Wasn't designed for that and it didn't go well enough hence using it for spots)


Yes, the FCC allocates sections of bandwidth. Directv uses four 250 MHz wide transponders and two 500 MHz wide transponders to broadcast Ka lo and Ka hi from 101 for their internal backhauls. The reason they use 24 MHz wide transponders for Ku and 36 MHz wide transponders for Ka is probably historic as much as anything. In a lot of cases multiple companies requested a certain orbital/frequency (i.e. 110 and 119, where Directv and Dish both have transponders) so there has to be a common scheme in use.

Since Directv received full 500 MHz blocks for Ka, theoretically they could have built their satellites and receivers to use a single 500 MHz wide transponder, but back then, a tuner able to tune a 500 MHz wide transponder would have been very expensive. Today it might be reasonable to do - Broadcom makes tuners able to handle 1 GHz at once, Maxlinear makes one able to handle 2.1 GHz, though I don't know if that width is only at the front end or the full tuner path (i.e. could it demodulate a single 2.1 GHz transponder?) Directv would have had to use a band stacking approach like Dish instead of the transponder stacking approach they used for SWM if they'd done this.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> The reason they use 24 MHz wide transponders for Ku and 36 MHz wide transponders for Ka is probably historic as much as anything. In a lot of cases multiple companies requested a certain orbital/frequency (i.e. 110 and 119, where Directv and Dish both have transponders) so there has to be a common scheme in use.


The initial Ku DBS licensing was by transponder and it remains that way. The early companies got two sets of transponders, one east (61.5, 101, 110, 119) and a matching number of transponders west (148, 157, 166, 175). Most companies requested and were assigned eight or eleven transponders east and west (16 or 22 transponders total). Only one company has ever built out their "west" transponders ... and now even that license has been forfeited. Mergers, mostly between DirecTV or DISH and unbuilt companies, led to the current mix of satellite transponder assignments. Toward the end of assigning transponders the FCC moved to an auction system and auctioned off all of the remaining space at each orbital location in large chunks - winner takes everything left. There are two transponders at 61.5 which the FCC refuses to assign to DISH (the FCC is reserving them for a new entry). DISH uses those two transponders under special temporary authority - and normally has test channels on those transponders.

The 32 channel Ku DBS assignments are an international standard ... although it is up to each country to decide who to allow to use their country's DBS transponders ... whether to assign all the transponders at an orbital location to one entity or allow companies to share. The whole history is both interesting and mundane.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Any more it is somewhat likely to be a DIRECTV LA bird (although DLA1, the next DIRECTV satellite to launch, may be enough for now).


As HarleyD points out, the next DTVLA satellite will be co-named DLA2/Intelsat 31 (and is a SSL satellite anyway). This new Astrium satellite was contracted by DirecTV directly and is much more likely to be an addition to the domestic fleet, and may be designed to relieve one or two aging satellites.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Doing some weight calculations on possible satellite pairings yesterday and it seems that DIRECTV 15 is good to go with GSAT 15 but DIRECTV 14 may be too heavy for the bird that it was once paired with, GSAT 16.It is my understanding that the useful payload limit of the Ariane 5 ECA is 9.6 metric tons. Since ISRO announced that GSAT 15 would launch soon, it seems likely that DIRECTV 15 would be its co-load.If the true limit is actually 10 metric tons then DIRECTV 14 could go with either of the GSAT birds.DIRECTV 14 launch mass = 6.502 metric tons (SSL 1300)DIRECTV 15 launch mass = 6.300 metric tons (Eurostar 3000)GSAT 15 launch mass = 3.200 metric tons (I3000)GSAT 16 launch mass = 3.400 metric tons (I3000)Note that I spelled out the unit of measure because the whole concept of tons can be confusing.US ton (short ton) = 2000 poundsUK ton (long ton) = 2240 pounds (has something to do with "hundredweight" being 112 pounds)tonne (metric ton) = 2204 pounds = 1000kg


My understanding of the GTO lift capacity of Ariane 5 boosters breaks down as follows:

Ariana 5 G: 6,200 kg
Ariana 5 G+: 6,950 kg
Ariana 5 GS: 6,100 kg
Ariana 5 ECA: 10,500 kg

If correct, that would make any combination of DirecTV 14 or 15 and GSAT 15 or 16 a viable payload. Both DirecTV 14/GSAT 15 and DirecTV 15/GSAT 16 total 9.7 metric tons. Only a combination of DirecTV 14 and GSAT 16 comes close to the ECA limit, weighing in at 9.9 metric tons.


----------



## Diana C

Diana C said:


> As HarleyD points out, the next DTVLA satellite will be co-named DLA2/Intelsat 31 (and is a SSL satellite anyway). This new Astrium satellite was contracted by DirecTV directly and is much more likely to be an addition to the domestic fleet, and may be designed to relieve one or two aging satellites.


Just saw a report today that this satellite may go to serve Sky Brazil, but it still does not have an official designation. I suspect that they may be waiting to make sure at least DirecTV 14 launches successfully before they commit it to a particular purpose.


----------



## LameLefty

For amateurs playing along at home, "payload to GTO" is basically a term of art. It means the mass that a launch vehicle can deliver to a standard GTO - "Geostationary Transfer Orbit." That orbit is generally defined as an apogee of 35,786 kilometers above sea level with a specified delta-V deficit necessary to circularize.

Most commercial launch operators specify that deficit as 1,500 m/s. That means that after launch and orbital insertion, the payload has to budget enough fuel to raise its velocity by 1,500 meters per second to "park" itself in its final orbital slot, plus budgeted excess for tweaks and any small errors along the way. All that is before consideration of fuel necessary for station-keeping and orbital slot changes during the lifetime of the vehicle, plus additional fuel reserved for end-of-life disposal to graveyard orbit.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Pretty sure it's all about bandwidth and not transponders in the end.


Absolutely. DIRECTV was granted a fixed bandwidth (two 500MHz bands) and how they divvy it up is their concern.

With that Ka birds, they chose to go with 24 36MHz transponders to consume their 500MHz bandwidth. With the Ku birds, the bandwidth was allocated 24MHz at a time. You get 50% more transponders with the narrower channels.

In a world that never had clouds, this could be a big win, but as it turns out, you probably don't get any more channels in 36MHz of Ka than you do in 24MHz of Ku.

Looking at the Schedule S for KU-79W, they're going with 36Mhz transponders on that bird.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> Just saw a report today that this satellite may go to serve Sky Brazil, but it still does not have an official designation. I suspect that they may be waiting to make sure at least DirecTV 14 launches successfully before they commit it to a particular purpose.


The application calls it KU-45W (callsign S2893). It is a relatively tiny satellite. This is consistent with a couple of other applications in for KU-76W and KU-79W.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Absolutely. DIRECTV was granted a fixed bandwidth (two 500MHz bands) and how they divvy it up is their concern.
> 
> With that Ka birds, they chose to go with 24 36MHz transponders to consume their 500MHz bandwidth. With the Ku birds, the bandwidth was allocated 24MHz at a time. You get 50% more transponders with the narrower channels.
> 
> In a world that never had clouds, this could be a big win, but as it turns out, you probably don't get any more channels in 36MHz of Ka than you do in 24MHz of Ku.
> 
> Looking at the Schedule S for KU-79W, they're going with 36Mhz transponders on that bird.


The larger the transponder, the less bandwidth that is wasted by guard bands, so it is more efficient. In a 500 MHz Ku block using 24 MHz transponders, you get 768 MHz of usable bandwidth for all 32 transponders (counting both polarities) In a 500 MHz Ka block using 36 MHz transponders, you get 864 MHz of usable bandwidth for all 24 transponders. So using 36 MHz wide transponders rather than 24 MHz is 12.5% more efficient.

Your point about Ku versus Ka and weather is correct, and there is one direct comparison we can make. Directv has one transponder on 119 broadcasting HD. It uses 20Mbaud 8PSK with 2/3 FEC, which provides about 40 Mb/s. Their Ka transponders use 30 Mbaud QPSK with 6/7 FEC, which provides pretty much the same 40 Mb/s. So Directv will get 12.5% more channels per 500 MHz block of Ka versus Ku, if both were dedicated to HD, due to that greater efficiency.

Directv uses 8PSK on their HD spotbeams, which allows about 60 Mb/s at the higher FEC they use (can't remember the exact specs) Presumably this is done because they need to fit more channels in the spotbeams, and since they're broadcast a little stronger than CONUS, this can be made to work.

For comparison, Dish uses 21.5 Mbaud 8PSK with 2/3 FEC, so they get about 7.5% more out of theirs (maybe that 7.5% is the "turbo" )


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> For comparison, Dish uses 21.5 Mbaud 8PSK with 2/3 FEC, so they get about 7.5% more out of theirs (maybe that 7.5% is the "turbo" )


DISH uses 21.5 Mbaud 8PSK at 2/3 FEC or 3/4 FEC, depending on the transponder (2/3 is more common for ConUS). The "turbo" transponders are 22.5 Mbaud 5/6 FEC transponders.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> DISH uses 21.5 Mbaud 8PSK at 2/3 FEC or 3/4 FEC, depending on the transponder (2/3 is more common for ConUS). The "turbo" transponders are 22.5 Mbaud 5/6 FEC transponders.


Is there anything special about them, other than using a slightly higher baud rate and different FEC? Why don't they use that for all transponders, is it older satellites or older hardware that doesn't support it?


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> Is there anything special about them, other than using a slightly higher baud rate and different FEC? Why don't they use that for all transponders, is it older satellites or older hardware that doesn't support it?


DISH is only using Turbo on the Mexican licensed satellite at 77. For a while DISH was using E1 (their first satellite) and E8 at 77 with Turbo transponders - so if there is any age limitations I'd read it the other way around, old satellites using Turbo because they could not support 8PSK. (Although the satellites are essentially electric mirrors ... retransmitting whatever they receive, not doing anything more than passing received signal through the output transmitters.) With QuetzSat 1 now in place I don't know why DISH has not converted to 8PSK ... but Turbo is working.

The other locations are using QPSK and 8PSK regardless of age. Perhaps QPSK transponders could be upgraded to Turbo ... but then receivers would also need to be upgraded to be able to use the Turbo signals.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> With QuetzSat 1 now in place I don't know why DISH has not converted to 8PSK ... but Turbo is working.
> 
> The other locations are using QPSK and 8PSK regardless of age. Perhaps QPSK transponders could be upgraded to Turbo ... but then receivers would also need to be upgraded to be able to use the Turbo signals.


The installed base of receivers is surely why they haven't made the jump.

It would be like DIRECTV moving more SD channels to 99W or 103W to take the squeeze off 101W and 119W.

I'm still baffled as to why DIRECTV keeps HD on 119W.


----------



## damondlt

harsh said:


> The installed base of receivers is surely why they haven't made the jump.
> 
> It would be like DIRECTV moving more SD channels to 99W or 103W to take the squeeze off 101W and 119W.
> 
> I'm still baffled as to why DIRECTV keeps HD on 119W.


What HD is on the 119?
119 is SD locals and SD Latino channels.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> If correct, that would make any combination of DirecTV 14 or 15 and GSAT 15 or 16 a viable payload. Both DirecTV 14/GSAT 15 and DirecTV 15/GSAT 16 total 9.7 metric tons. Only a combination of DirecTV 14 and GSAT 16 comes close to the ECA limit, weighing in at 9.9 metric tons.


The Ariane5 ECA usable capacity has been reported differently depending on where you look. Their website verbally claims "more than 10 metric tons" for the Ariane 5 series but the original press release for the ECA said 9.6 tonnes.

Perhaps it depends on how many payloads there are.

It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.


----------



## harsh

damondlt said:


> What HD is on the 119?


MegaTV HD (405)
UniMas West HD (408)
beIN SPORTS en Espanol HD (426)
ESPN Deportes HD (432)


----------



## harsh

yosoyellobo said:


> I was just wondering if it was possible with some future technology to provide everything in one satellite. With what we have now could it be done with three?


It isn't so much about satellites but what bandwidth you have at each slot and that can be provided by placing multiple satellites.

DIRECTV currently shares bandwidth with DISH at 110W and 119W so together they only contribute less than one slot's worth of Ku bandwidth.

The piecemeal approach works better as you don't have an "all your eggs in one basket" situation and the satellites themselves aren't so heavy and bulky as to require a major launch vehicle to put into orbit.


----------



## damondlt

harsh said:


> MegaTV HD (405)
> UniMas West HD (408)
> beIN SPORTS en Espanol HD (426)
> ESPN Deportes HD (432)


And again, that's Spanish programming. 
All which requires the 119 anyway for 90% of Latino programming.


----------



## James Long

James Long said:


> With QuetzSat 1 now in place I don't know why DISH has not converted to 8PSK ... but Turbo is working.





harsh said:


> The installed base of receivers is surely why they haven't made the jump.


Nope. The content on the Turbo transponders can only be seen on receivers that are also capable of receiving 8PSK (MPEG4 channels in HD and SD). Converting from QPSK to Turbo would require receiver upgrades ... but that isn't the question.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> It isn't so much about satellites but what bandwidth you have at each slot and that can be provided by placing multiple satellites.


Each company cannot exceed their own licenses. If a company is licensed for 21 specific transponders of DBS at an orbital location they could service it with one satellite or several ... having several does not increase the bandwidth. If the company is using spotbeams having more than one satellite can help with power loads - and more than one satellite can help with redundancy. But adding satellites does not increase bandwidth unless one gets additional licenses.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> It isn't so much about satellites but what bandwidth you have at each slot and that can be provided by placing multiple satellites.
> 
> DIRECTV currently shares bandwidth with DISH at 110W and 119W so together they only contribute less than one slot's worth of Ku bandwidth.
> 
> The piecemeal approach works better as you don't have an "all your eggs in one basket" situation and the satellites themselves aren't so heavy and bulky as to require a major launch vehicle to put into orbit.


To amplify that response, to provide the transmission capacity of the multiple satellites at each slot would require a very large satellite. That in turn would require a very large solar array, bigger batteries, larger thrusters and more fuel. The resulting satellite would be too heavy to lift with current boosters.


----------



## harsh

damondlt said:


> And again, that's Spanish programming.


But it is Spanish programming that requires HD equipment that is Ka capable.

It isn't like their Latino HD subscribers are still using Phase III dishes. There were Spanish language channels on Ka long before these other channels showed up.


----------



## Diana C

Why move those channels? What would the advantage be? Those subscribers still need access to 119.


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> But it is Spanish programming that requires HD equipment that is Ka capable.
> 
> It isn't like their Latino HD subscribers are still using Phase III dishes. There were Spanish language channels on Ka long before these other channels showed up.


And keeping them on 119 allows them to save space for non Spanish programming on core satelites for people who don't have a 5lnb dish... Pretty logical.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> This new Astrium satellite was contracted by DirecTV directly and is much more likely to be an addition to the domestic fleet, and may be designed to relieve one or two aging satellites.


DIRECTV has licenses to fill for 46W, 76W and 79W.

I'm not sure how they got a 76W (or even 79W) slot if QuetzSat1 is sitting at 77W.


----------



## damondlt

harsh said:


> But it is Spanish programming that requires HD equipment that is Ka capable.
> 
> It isn't like their Latino HD subscribers are still using Phase III dishes. There were Spanish language channels on Ka long before these other channels showed up.


So what, in order to get HD channels you mentioned you need HD equipment, so what's your point?
All Latino packs HD and SD requires access to the 119?
So again what's the big deal?
If you only have a Phase III you're not getting HD programming anyway.
If a customer wants a Latino pack period, they must have access to the 119.
So again why move them?


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> Why move those channels? What would the advantage be? Those subscribers still need access to 119.


The advantage would be the ability to add "up to" 13 new SD channels or improve the quality of the ones already there.

DIRECTV is still a long way from getting away from SD programming and I don't think it is reasonable to paint Latinos as a microcosm of the subscriber base.


----------



## inkahauts

Exactly. You need 119 and Hi Definition equipment for Spanish. You need Hi Definition equipment and only core 3 locations for non Spanish. Why fill up non Spanish slots at core locations when there's nothing to gain by doing so..... The customer has to have 119 anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## damondlt

harsh said:


> The advantage would be the ability to add "up to" 13 new SD channels or improve the quality of the ones already there.
> 
> DIRECTV is still a long way from getting away from SD programming and I don't think it is reasonable to paint Latinos as a microcosm of the subscriber base.


Yea, I like Directv's Idea better.
And the Latino division of Directv is bursting at the seams.
I really don't think them having a Slimine 5 makes them a minority. 
Millions of Directv's USA customers have slimline 5 's. 
That mean Directv doesn't care about them?

I got a better Idea, you should worry more about Dish they are the ones not gaining hundreds of thousands Latino customers.
Where is Dish networks Latino channels located on EA?
77?


----------



## P Smith

James Long said:


> DISH uses 21.5 Mbaud 8PSK at 2/3 FEC or 3/4 FEC, depending on the transponder (2/3 is more common for ConUS). The "turbo" transponders are 22.5 Mbaud 5/6 FEC transponders.


Last years they raise Turbo FEC to 5/6 on some tpns


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> The advantage would be the ability to add "up to" 13 new SD channels or improve the quality of the ones already there.DIRECTV is still a long way from getting away from SD programming and I don't think it is reasonable to paint Latinos as a microcosm of the subscriber base.


DirecTV maybe a long way from dropping SD, but that day is now in sight, since they stopped doing new SD installs. They are about as likely to add "'up to' 13 new SD channels" as Dish Network is to add YES network.

Why suggesting moving Spanish language HD off 119 makes no sense:

- A subscriber must have access to 119 for Spanish language programming of any kind, so it is no hardship for anyone
- Adding new general interest SD channels to 119 would make those channels inaccessible to customers with Slimline 3 and 101 only dishes (a VERY large number)
- If they have room at 99 or 103 for 3 more HD channels it makes way more sense to add channels of interest to both English AND Spanish speaking customers

In short, the only reason to move them is to conform to some "convention" that ALL HD content be at 99 or 103. Any argument like "they have to use Ka equipment anyway" cuts both ways, since they also need a Slimline 5 dish "anyway."


----------



## Diana C

damondlt said:


> ...Millions of Directv's USA customers have slimline 5 's...


Hey! I resemble that remark!!


----------



## inkahauts

Diana C said:


> DirecTV maybe a long way from dropping SD, but that day is now in sight, since they stopped doing new SD installs. They are about as likely to add "'up to' 13 new SD channels" as Dish Network is to add YES network.
> 
> Why suggesting moving Spanish language HD off 119 makes no sense:
> 
> - A subscriber must have access to 119 for Spanish language programming of any kind, so it is no hardship for anyone
> - Adding new general interest SD channels to 119 would make those channels inaccessible to customers with Slimline 3 and 101 only dishes (a VERY large number)
> - If they have room at 99 or 103 for 3 more HD channels it makes way more sense to add channels of interest to both English AND Spanish speaking customers
> 
> In short, the only reason to move them is to conform to some "convention" that ALL HD content be at 99 or 103. Any argument like "they have to use Ka equipment anyway" cuts both ways, since they also need a Slimline 5 dish "anyway."


Yep!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> ... and the satellites themselves aren't so heavy and bulky as to require a major launch vehicle to put into orbit.


I think you do a grave disservice to Ariane 5, Zenit-3SL and Proton to imply they're not "major launch vehicles." They are the largest-capacity commercial boosters in regular service today (though one can argue that Zenit's problems - some QA-related and some shot-in-the-foot-by-management-related) render it a marginal player in the current launch market.



Diana C said:


> To amplify that response, to provide the transmission capacity of the multiple satellites at each slot would require a very large satellite. That in turn would require a very large solar array, bigger batteries, larger thrusters and more fuel. The resulting satellite would be too heavy to lift with current boosters.


There's nothing ever launched for commercial purposes that couldn't be launched as a singleton by Ariane 5 if the customer were willing to pay enough. For that matter, Delta IV Heavy could put over 14,000 kg into a standard GTO if anyone wanted to spend that kind of money to do so.

People would be crazy if they didn't think Directv, Dish and other commercial providers around the world have never run trade studies to consider what kind of capabilities would be available if they wanted to pony up enough cash to buy a launch like that from Ariansespace or ULA. And yet, to date, none have done so. In fact, Ariane 6 is on the drawing boards because Ariane 5's dual-manifest approach has proven frustrating to make work smoothly enough, keep all their customers happy, and keep their launch campaigns flowing smoothly from one to the next, and no one is remotely interested in a satellite as big as what DIV Heavy could fly (except the USAF and NRO).

All objective signs seem, in fact, to point to the idea that the current ~5 - 6 tonne size for comsats (plus or minus) is the sweet spot between launch mass, cost of production, cost of launch services, payload capability and commercial service life. It's the approximate launch capability of Proton, Zenit-3L, individual payloads for Ariane 5, and the most recent entrant into the commercial GTO launch service market, SpaceX's Falcon 9.


----------



## peds48

Diana C said:


> DirecTV maybe a long way from dropping SD, but that day is now in sight, since they stopped doing new SD installs. They are about as likely to add "'up to' 13 new SD channels" as Dish Network is to add YES network.


EXACTLY! :righton:

And since he was proven wrong, he wont be coming back to argue this anymore&#8230;..


----------



## harsh

damondlt said:


> Yea, I like Directv's Idea better.
> And the Latino division of Directv is bursting at the seams.


My point was headed more towards forsaking most of DIRECTV's SD customer base as opposed to sequestering their Latino customers.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> My point was headed more towards forsaking most of DIRECTV's SD customer base as opposed to sequestering their Latino customers.


In what way is Directv "forsaking most of [their] SD customer base"? Directv has been on record for several years that they would eventually phase out MPEG2 and deliver MPEG4 only, and recently they've taken the first step down that path, but I don't see what delivering MPEG4/HD on one transponder of 119 has to do with that.

Dish is going to have to do the same for the arc that still has MPEG2 (curious - does Dish still do MPEG2/SD only installs in that arc?) Cable companies are eliminating analog channels that older "cable ready" SD TVs could tune without a box, which is a similar sea change for customers who were previously able to avoid monthly 'box' charges on less used TVs. "Forsaken" is a pretty poor choice of words, as it implies these customers are being abandoned by Directv, i.e. "after this date, you will no longer be able to get service", which is not true with Directv, or any provider - customers who want to continue to use their old TV sets will be able to do so. They'll be provided equipment that will allow this (a HD receiver and if necessary a modulator by Directv, a mini converter box by cable companies, etc.)

Directv has decided to allocate their resources in a way that has a single transponder on 119 (out of a total of 33 CONUS transponders on 101 & 119) broadcasting MPEG4 HD for the Latino customers, rather than dedicate one on 99/103. If it is a matter of resources on 99/103, once D14 launches and makes 16 new CONUS MPEG4/HD transponders available, those channels would likely move to 99/103.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> In what way is Directv "forsaking most of [their] SD customer base"? Directv has been on record for several years that they would eventually phase out MPEG2 and deliver MPEG4 only, and recently they've taken the first step down that path, but I don't see what delivering MPEG4/HD on one transponder of 119 has to do with that.


Transitioning to MPEG4 has a serious impact that DIRECTV still hasn't really pushed all that hard to address.

Insisting that the channels will necessarily be HD is folly.

The other guys bifurcated their system to pull it off but to date, DIRECTV has committed only to filling in small markets and installing capable equipment going forward.


----------



## inkahauts

Serious impact? They are soon going to have more bandwidth than they know what to do with. It's impact getting mpeg2 gone isn't as big a deal as it is for most carriers. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

Diana C said:


> DirecTV maybe a long way from dropping SD, but that day is now in sight, since they stopped doing new SD installs. They are about as likely to add "'up to' 13 new SD channels" as Dish Network is to add YES network.


I suspect DirecTV will add 13 SD channels before they stop supporting MPEG2. New channels such as SEC and Longhorn need SD channels for DirecTV's MPEG2 subscribers. Unless all DirecTV does is upgrade existing SD channels to HD they will need space for the SD equivalents - or offer the new channels as "HD Only" which could upset MPEG2 subscribers.

It is easy for people who already have HD equipment and service to overlook the SD subscribers ... even to the point of saying "if they want SEC and Longhorn the subscriber needs to upgrade to HD". Has DirecTV reached that point where they will not add a single MPEG2 SD channel - even if it is also added in HD?


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Transitioning to MPEG4 has a serious impact that DIRECTV still hasn't really pushed all that hard to address.
> 
> Insisting that the channels will necessarily be HD is folly.
> 
> The other guys bifurcated their system to pull it off but to date, DIRECTV has committed only to filling in small markets and installing capable equipment going forward.


What "serious impact"? Whatever you're talking about, Directv sure is addressing it - no more MPEG2 receivers or non-Slimline dishes are being installed for new customers, so normal attrition (18% customer turnover every year) is reducing the number of MPEG2 customers every day.

There are many ways to manage the transition for long time MPEG2 customers who aren't "churning" out, it is not a very difficult problem if it is addressed in pieces by taking the customers most likely to be willing to be migrated for free first. For example, those who subscribe to premium content like HBO and NFLST can be migrated by giving them a cut-off date after which that content will no longer be provided in MPEG2, but assuring them they'll be able to keep using the same TV set they use now if they don't want to upgrade to a HDTV.

No one has suggested the channels will all be HD, only that they will all be MPEG4. There are some people who may be confused as they equate MPEG2=SD and MPEG4=HD, but Directv sure isn't. There are already plenty of MPEG4 SD channels and there will probably be some a decade from now. After all, if you have a classic TV channel only showing reruns of stuff like Gilligan's Island, there's no point in making it HD. Some international content may be produced in SD for years to come.

As for Dish "pulling it off", that's a laugh! They didn't split their system specifically for this, and doing so has permanently raised their cost of delivering service. All it did was make the problem smaller, they have pulled off nothing. They still have MPEG2 gear in half the country, and face the same transition as Directv.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> I suspect DirecTV will add 13 SD channels before they stop supporting MPEG2. New channels such as SEC and Longhorn need SD channels for DirecTV's MPEG2 subscribers. Unless all DirecTV does is upgrade existing SD channels to HD they will need space for the SD equivalents - or offer the new channels as "HD Only" which could upset MPEG2 subscribers.
> 
> It is easy for people who already have HD equipment and service to overlook the SD subscribers ... even to the point of saying "if they want SEC and Longhorn the subscriber needs to upgrade to HD". Has DirecTV reached that point where they will not add a single MPEG2 SD channel - even if it is also added in HD?


Of course they still need to add some SD channels as new channels are created and added to Directv, but the presence of that handful of HD channels on 119 doesn't affect their ability or difficulty in adding SD channels for stuff like SECN and LHN, because they can't be added on 119 anyway, since not all SD subscribers can receive that satellite.

I suspect the decision about adding those MPEG4 HD channels to 119 had to do with not wanting to compromise the quality of the HD channels on 99/103, which would no longer be an issue once D14 launches. Since 119 is already essentially used for Spanish speaking content, putting those Spanish HD channels there makes perfect sense. 119 may be under less of a space crunch than 101 is, as the latter is their one "general purpose" SD satellite that must take on every newly added SD channel of general interest.

Presumably Directv won't keep a full menu of MPEG2 channels until one day they pull the plug on everything, but will remove some MPEG2 channels in groups over time before they dump the rest as a way of transitioning customers in groups instead of all at once. The moment the first group of MPEG2 channels are removed, they'll have breathing room for the demands of newly added channels. Until then, space on 101 will get a bit tighter with every channel they add, but what they may do with 119 is irrelevant to that fact.


----------



## James Long

Don't get me wrong ... I have no issue with those HD channels being on 119.

I'm not sure how DirecTV will handle turning off MPEG2 SD ... I am sure that there are bean counters doing risk assessments to try to figure out the best approach. Stopping the MPEG2 transmission of premium packages is something DirecTV will need to coordinate with the providers. The bean counters will figure what to transition and when.


----------



## damondlt

James Long said:


> It is easy for people who already have HD equipment and service to overlook the SD subscribers ... even to the point of saying "if they want SEC and Longhorn the subscriber needs to upgrade to HD". Has DirecTV reached that point where they will not add a single MPEG2 SD channel - even if it is also added in HD?


Hey james, All Latino subscriber must have the 119 period.
All HD customers must have a SLIMLINE. Period
All Latino HD customers must have a Slimline 5 lnb! period.

So how are SD customers over looked?
What does 4 Latino HD channels on the 119 have any effect on SD customers what so ever?

If Directv is going to add SD National channels, they are going to be added to the 101.
Just like always.
Not the 119.
119 is a small handful of PI, sonic tap, and Latino channels.
Always has been.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Serious impact?


For all intents and purposes, adding all this MPEG4 bandwidth is doing nothing to the end of removing SD equipment from the subscriber population.


> They are soon going to have more bandwidth than they know what to do with.


Soon may be a bit of an exaggeration. I don't anticipate anything happening in US on Ka band for at least six months -- probably more. Maybe DIRECTV "knows" otherwise.


> It's impact getting mpeg2 gone isn't as big a deal as it is for most carriers.


Most carriers have already placed MPEG4 capable equipment in their user's hands and for most of those customers, significant changes in signal delivery inside the home are NOT required. Even the TiVo's have supported MPEG4 since the introduction of the Premiere series in 2010.

DIRECTV had planned to start the transition in earnest in 2009 with a completion date that has already passed. They're not a whole lot closer now than they were in 2009 (outside of some MPEG4 LIL areas) and I don't see where natural attrition is likely to get the job done.


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> For all intents and purposes, adding all this MPEG4 bandwidth is doing nothing to the end of removing SD equipment from the subscriber population.
> Soon may be a bit of an exaggeration. I don't anticipate anything happening in US on Ka band for at least six months -- probably more. Maybe DIRECTV "knows" otherwise.
> Most carriers have already placed MPEG4 capable equipment in their user's hands and for most of those customers, significant changes in signal delivery inside the home are NOT required. Even the TiVo's have supported MPEG4 since the introduction of the Premiere series in 2010.
> 
> DIRECTV had planned to start the transition in earnest in 2009 with a completion date that has already passed. They're not a whole lot closer now than they were in 2009 (outside of some MPEG4 LIL areas) and* I don't see where natural attrition is likely to get the job done.*


Churn. Simple. I'd guess a significant percentage of churn are sd customers. They no longer need to be converted. Between them and the slow conversion of customers that want ST and other hd only products, it won't be long before the sd only customer base is small enough to force them to convert or leave.


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> For all intents and purposes, adding all this MPEG4 bandwidth is doing nothing to the end of removing SD equipment from the subscriber population.
> Soon may be a bit of an exaggeration. I don't anticipate anything happening in US on Ka band for at least six months -- probably more. Maybe DIRECTV "knows" otherwise.
> Most carriers have already placed MPEG4 capable equipment in their user's hands and for most of those customers, significant changes in signal delivery inside the home are NOT required. Even the TiVo's have supported MPEG4 since the introduction of the Premiere series in 2010.
> 
> DIRECTV had planned to start the transition in earnest in 2009 with a completion date that has already passed. They're not a whole lot closer now than they were in 2009 (outside of some MPEG4 LIL areas) and I don't see where natural attrition is likely to get the job done.


Actually it has a ton to do with it. They have a lot of stations that don't have a mpeg4 version which they will need to have before they begin the biggest parts of the conversion. This will all happen in stages not over night. And there's more stuff coming it seems that may make this transition a lot less expensive. That also can be overlooked at all.

And can you point to something to show they had planned to get rid of mpeg2 way back when? I've never heard that before

I do agree natural attrition is not gong to be how this works. It will be slow an steady for a while then it will become a faster and faster move. But it'll be several years still.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LameLefty

damondlt said:


> All HD customers must have a SLIMLINE. Period


Well, not exactly. I'm an HD customer with AU-9 5-LNB dish feeding a SWiM16. It may be almost 8 years old (  ) but it's still chugging along. I doubt I'm the only one.


----------



## studechip

LameLefty said:


> Well, not exactly. I'm an HD customer with AU-9 5-LNB dish feeding a SWiM16. It may be almost 8 years old (  ) but it's still chugging along. I doubt I'm the only one.


I'll bet you are one of the few.


----------



## HoTat2

LameLefty said:


> Well, not exactly. I'm an HD customer with *AU-9 5-LNB dish* feeding a SWiM16. It may be almost 8 years old (  ) but it's still chugging along. I doubt I'm the only one.


IIRC, the AU-9 is a Slimline;

Did you mean the old "AT-9," that is the one with the 110/119 sidecar?


----------



## James Long

damondlt said:


> If Directv is going to add SD National channels, they are going to be added to the 101.


I didn't say they wouldn't. You seem to be wound up about something someone else said. All I said was that there would be SD channels added before MPEG2 SD goes away. I didn't say where or when. That would be up to DirecTV.


----------



## damondlt

LameLefty said:


> Well, not exactly. I'm an HD customer with AU-9 5-LNB dish feeding a SWiM16. It may be almost 8 years old (  ) but it's still chugging along. I doubt I'm the only one.


I meant new customers as of the last 4 years. Lol.


----------



## damondlt

The fact that Directv can serve all of it 20 million + USA customers with Latino and American base packs with Single dish anywhere in the USA with a 5 lnb and support its SD and HD customers, IMO is impressive.


----------



## damondlt

I think my next question would be,
Does directv have plans to make an LNB that fits the slimline that would support 95,99,101,103 for international so we wouldn't need another dish.

Since a new satellite is going up before Directv14 I wonder if that will eventually be an option.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> Don't get me wrong ... I have no issue with those HD channels being on 119.
> 
> I'm not sure how DirecTV will handle turning off MPEG2 SD ... I am sure that there are bean counters doing risk assessments to try to figure out the best approach. Stopping the MPEG2 transmission of premium packages is something DirecTV will need to coordinate with the providers. The bean counters will figure what to transition and when.


The bean counters are involved in any decision in a multi billion dollar company 

I'll bet Directv planned their approach and timeline several years ago, and we saw the first step when they stopped MPEG2/SD installs for new customers. Probably around the time they started talking about it a couple years ago.


----------



## LameLefty

HoTat2 said:


> IIRC, the AU-9 is a Slimline;
> 
> Did you mean the old "AT-9," that is the one with the 110/119 sidecar?


Yep, you're correct. Typo in my post. I have the first-gen AT-9 with the sidecar. I keep thinking that it'll die someday in a bad storm or something but it just keeps on keepin' on.


----------



## damondlt

LameLefty said:


> Yep, you're correct. Typo in my post. I have the first-gen AT-9 with the sidecar. I keep thinking that it'll die someday in a bad storm or something but it just keeps on keepin' on.


The is also one by me still in action. I pass it almost every day.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> For all intents and purposes, adding all this MPEG4 bandwidth is doing nothing to the end of removing SD equipment from the subscriber population.


As inkahauts points out, there is the small matter of channels that Directv doesn't carry HD for, and are only broadcast in MPEG2. They need additional bandwidth to either add the HD channel, or add a MPEG4 SD version of it (if it is not available in HD, or Directv for whatever reason can't/won't carry it in HD)

The new satellites would also be helpful in terms of feeling confident they can take a major unexpected failure in their HD satellites and still be OK.



harsh said:


> Most carriers have already placed MPEG4 capable equipment in their user's hands and for most of those customers, significant changes in signal delivery inside the home are NOT required. Even the TiVo's have supported MPEG4 since the introduction of the Premiere series in 2010.


Cable companies have placed some MPEG4 capable equipment but I'm not aware of any large one that's near being able to drop MPEG2 nationwide. There are some that have done it in limited areas, but it may be years before they can do it everywhere. It all depends on how soon they started distribution of only MPEG4 capable receivers and how many MPEG2 only receivers are left in the field. That Tivo supports MPEG4 is neither here nor there. People with a fairly recent Tivo are ready for cable to go MPEG4, but that doesn't mean their provider is ready.

Cable companies wouldn't have to use kludges like SDV if they were able to kill MPEG2, but SDV is still out there making people's lives miserable. I wouldn't be surprised if Directv drops MPEG2 before any cable company with more than 5 million subscribers does so.



harsh said:


> DIRECTV had planned to start the transition in earnest in 2009 with a completion date that has already passed. They're not a whole lot closer now than they were in 2009 (outside of some MPEG4 LIL areas) and I don't see where natural attrition is likely to get the job done.


Do you have proof of this assertion? Even if it was true, a lot of companies make plans and then reality gets in the way. Maybe costs didn't drop as quickly as they believed, or the adoption rate of HDTVs didn't match their early projections.

Natural attrition won't get the job done, but it makes the problem smaller every day, and a lot smaller every year. There are 10,000 people every day who leave Directv, and another 10,000 who sign up for Directv. In the first quarter of this year, nearly a third of those new installs - over 3,000 a day - were MPEG2/SD installs. Now none of them are. Every day many SD only customers leave, so the numbers are constantly dropping. There are also plenty of SD only customers who are induced by offers of a free Genie, especially if they have recently taken the plunge and bought their first HDTV now that prices have really started dropping in the last year or two. So existing/long term customers are upgrading on their own as well.


----------



## damondlt

slice1900 said:


> As inkahauts points out, there is the small matter of channels that Directv doesn't carry HD for, and are only broadcast in MPEG2. They need additional bandwidth to either add the HD channel, or add a MPEG4 SD version of it (if it is not available in HD, or Directv for whatever reason can't/won't carry it in HD)
> 
> The new satellites would also be helpful in terms of feeling confident they can take a major unexpected failure in their HD satellites and still be OK.
> 
> Cable companies have placed some MPEG4 capable equipment but I'm not aware of any large one that's near being able to drop MPEG2 nationwide. There are some that have done it in limited areas, but it may be years before they can do it everywhere. It all depends on how soon they started distribution of only MPEG4 capable receivers and how many MPEG2 only receivers are left in the field. That Tivo supports MPEG4 is neither here nor there. People with a fairly recent Tivo are ready for cable to go MPEG4, but that doesn't mean their provider is ready.
> 
> Cable companies wouldn't have to use kludges like SDV if they were able to kill MPEG2, but SDV is still out there making people's lives miserable. I wouldn't be surprised if Directv drops MPEG2 before any cable company with more than 5 million subscribers does so.
> 
> Do you have proof of this assertion? Even if it was true, a lot of companies make plans and then reality gets in the way. Maybe costs didn't drop as quickly as they believed, or the adoption rate of HDTVs didn't match their early projections.
> 
> Natural attrition won't get the job done, but it makes the problem smaller every day, and a lot smaller every year. There are 10,000 people every day who leave Directv, and another 10,000 who sign up for Directv. In the first quarter of this year, nearly a third of those new installs - over 3,000 a day - were MPEG2/SD installs. Now none of them are. Every day many SD only customers leave, so the numbers are constantly dropping. There are also plenty of SD only customers who are induced by offers of a free Genie, especially if they have recently taken the plunge and bought their first HDTV now that prices have really started dropping in the last year or two. So existing/long term customers are upgrading on their own as well.


Might as well save your breath. Lol 
Or I should say your typing fingers.

We can gladly discuss the competition and it's channel placement flaws.
But we all know how that will turn out.


----------



## slice1900

damondlt said:


> I think my next question would be,
> Does directv have plans to make an LNB that fits the slimline that would support 95,99,101,103 for international so we wouldn't need another dish.
> 
> Since a new satellite is going up before Directv14 I wonder if that will eventually be an option.


I guarantee they will not make a LNB that adds support for 95. If they were going to do so, they would have done so long ago. They'll simply mirror the content carried on 95 onto 99 or 103 and thus avoid the need for an international dish on new installs. Expect to see that shortly after D14 launches and is fully operational.

There are only 8 transponders on G3C, and using MPEG4 instead of MPEG2 and the slightly greater (12.5%) efficiency of Ka's wider transponders would allow fitting into 3 or at most 4 transponders on 99/103. Since they're adding 16 new CONUS transponders with D14, dedicating a few for this seems like a no-brainer. They could also put them on the new RDBS bands and leave the Ka transponders for HD only.

If the "new satellite" you're talking about is DLA-1, that has nothing do with Directv in the USA. That satellite is going to 95* and will support Latin American customers, but it doesn't broadcast the type of signal that Directv's 95* dish can pick up. Thus the existing G3C satellite that's delivering Directv's international channels will need to remain operational a few years until they can migrate all those customers off as part of the MPEG2 transition.

What some of us wonder is whether Directv will continue using even 110/119 after they've decommissioned MPEG2. They may use them for internal needs rather than customer content (similar to Ka from 101) and all customers nationwide would only need 99/101/103. I can''t see how it would even be worth their while to launch a new satellite to 110 just to provide three measly transponders, but there are enough at 119 it could have some value for them for internal use or something highly specialized for a few of their larger corporate clients who have internal channels.


----------



## harsh

studechip said:


> Churn. Simple.


Simple if it works the way you expect.


> I'd guess a significant percentage of churn are sd customers.


I'd guess that a greater percentage are customers who jump services when their commitments/contracts expire to get deals and all they contribute is equipment ready for the refurbish pool.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Actually it has a ton to do with it. They have a lot of stations that don't have a mpeg4 version which they will need to have before they begin the biggest parts of the conversion. This will all happen in stages not over night.


Do you assume that content has to originate in MPEG4 for it to be sent back out in MPEG4? Some, if not a majority, of the content they're getting now is already MPEG4. We know that HBO and Cinemax went MPEG4 a few years ago yet here they manage to be carried on cable TV.

The movement to QAM in the cable industry has long ago dealt with the issue of transcoding. If there are any MPEG2 downlinkers left, the multiplexers will deal with them the same way they've been converting from MPEG4 to MPEG2 previously.

All they need is capable encoders (since we can be pretty sure that all carriers recompress) and to call in STBs that aren't MPEG4 capable and their transition is complete. No new customer premise wiring or transmission plant conversion required.


----------



## longrider

harsh said:


> Simple if it works the way you expect.I'd guess that a greater percentage are customers who jump services when their commitments/contracts expire to get deals and all they contribute is equipment ready for the refurbish pool.


Remember jumping services works both ways. If 10000 SD customers leave DirecTV for Dish or cable that pulls 10000 MPEG2 receivers out of the field. Now 10000 SD customers leave Dish or cable for DirecTV and their installs get MPEG4 equipment. While your SD customer base is unchanged you have just effectively swapped out 10000 receivers.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Simple if it works the way you expect.I'd guess that a greater percentage are customers who jump services when their commitments/contracts expire to get deals and all they contribute is equipment ready for the refurbish pool.


Just keep in mind that this not DirecTV's first time to this rodeo. They have previously dealt with infrastructure changes when they converted Primestar subs to DirecTV equipment, introduced multi-slot dishes, converted HD to MPEG4, introduced Ka, put MOCA signals in the terrestrial broadcast band and eliminated the old guide data formats.

These all, to a lesser or greater extent, introduced technologies that potentially made some services unavailable to users until their equipment was swapped out. DirecTV, as has been noted several times, will take years to shut down MPEG2 SD broadcasting. Now that no new subscribers are being created, natural attrition (whether by churn, voluntary upgrades to HD, or other mechanisms) will slowly diminish the number of subs that need conversion. At some point, they will start a campaign to replace the remainder proactively. Until then, nothing much will happen.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Diana C said:


> Just keep in mind that this not DirecTV's first time to this rodeo. They have previously dealt with infrastructure changes when they converted Primestar subs to DirecTV equipment, introduced multi-slot dishes, converted HD to MPEG4, introduced Ka, put MOCA signals in the terrestrial broadcast band and eliminated the old guide data formats.
> 
> These all, to a lesser or greater extent, introduced technologies that potentially made some services unavailable to users until their equipment was swapped out. DirecTV, as has been noted several times, will take years to shut down MPEG2 SD broadcasting. Now that no new subscribers are being created, natural attrition (whether by churn, voluntary upgrades to HD, or other mechanisms) will slowly diminish the number of subs that need conversion. At some point, they will start a campaign to replace the remainder proactively. Until then, nothing much will happen.


A great synopsis!


----------



## LameLefty

As elucidating as all of this is, it has very little to do with Directv-14 per se. Can we please at least point generally back in that direction? Some of have this thread subscribed and don't want to wade through page after page of one user picking arguments and making ill-supported statements, only to have better-informed members correcting him over and over again.

Thanks.


----------



## Diana C

An excellent point....

:backtotop


----------



## thelucky1

LameLefty said:


> As elucidating as all of this is, it has very little to do with Directv-14 per se. Can we please at least point generally back in that direction? Some of have this thread subscribed and don't want to wade through page after page of one user picking arguments and making ill-supported statements, only to have better-informed members correcting him over and over again.
> Thanks.


Yes! Thank you!

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## SPACEMAKER

I just stopped by to find out the latest news relating to a launch date.

Sent from my Verizon Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

SPACEMAKER said:


> I just stopped by to find out the latest news relating to a launch date.
> 
> Sent from my Verizon Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk


Due to the current backlog at Arianespace, need for a suitable companion payload, and the naturally slow way things move in this complex business.

Look for sometime well into the first quarter of next year for D14/RB-1, and perhaps near the end of the 1st quarter or early 2nd for D15/RB-2.

No firm dates yet though ...


----------



## harsh

longrider said:


> Remember jumping services works both ways. If 10000 SD customers leave DirecTV for Dish or cable that pulls 10000 MPEG2 receivers out of the field. Now 10000 SD customers leave Dish or cable for DirecTV and their installs get MPEG4 equipment. While your SD customer base is unchanged you have just effectively swapped out 10000 receivers.


The likely flaw in this argument is that the customers who jump aren't all hoarding aged out SD equipment. If they are regular jumpers, they return equipment that is not much more than two years old.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> Due to the current backlog at Arianespace, need for a suitable companion payload, and the naturally slow way things move in this complex business.


I think it is disingenuous to blame the delays on a backlog at Arianespace. The problem with DIRECTV 14 is that of finding a suitable companion that is realistically ready to go. In the interim, launches are happening more or less apace.

It is also important to remember that DIRECTV 14 wasn't truly complete until last month (according to its manufacturer).


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> I think it is disingenuous to blame the delays on a backlog at Arianespace. The problem with DIRECTV 14 is that of finding a suitable companion that is realistically ready to go. In the interim, launches are happening more or less apace.
> 
> 
> 
> Well ... if there is any disingenuousness blame it on DIRECTV. Because what I posted are the "reasons" (plural) "they" (not "me") list for the launch delays until 2015 of both D14 & 15 in their milestone extension FCC requests for the RB-1 & 2 payloads aboard each of them respectively.
> 
> _... Unfortunately, although DIRECTV's satellite_
> _will be ready for delivery in September, no launch slot is available until 2015 due to a_
> _*combination of factors beyond DIRECTV's control*. These factors are discussed below._
> *First, although DIRECTV has maintained its place in the Arianespace launch*
> *queue, that place has marched steadily later in time due to delays in earlier-scheduled*
> *launches. Given the complexity of the satellite launch process, delays are not an*
> _*uncommon occurrence in the industry*. Moreover, because of the nature of Arianespace's_
> _co-passenger launches, one satellite operator may be ready for launch but be delayed by_
> _wholly unrelated problems experienced by another satellite operator._
Click to expand...

 



> ... It is also important to remember that DIRECTV 14 wasn't truly complete until last month (according to its manufacturer).


What difference does it make?

In spite of these delays both satellites are ready for delivery sometime this month as noted in their ME attached construction status letters which I posted sometime back. Yet their launch windows have already longed slipped to sometime next year.

So their construction delays are totally irrelevant at this point.


----------



## slice1900

It isn't as though D14 is the only satellite being built at any one time by its manufacturer. As the launch is delayed, they might de-prioritize finishing its build in favor of building other satellites that maybe don't have delays or where they will face financial penalties for not getting it completed by the scheduled time.

We don't know what the construction contract looks like and if Directv would have penalties for not getting the satellite built in time, but if it was originally targeted for (just as an example) July 1, 2013, as delays from Arianespace pile up they can let that completion date slip, either because there are no penalties or because Directv chooses to waive them since getting it built earlier serves no purpose. In fact, they'd probably prefer that the construction slip along with the launch slips, otherwise they'll have to pay someone to store it since they can't keep it at the launch site for months in advance.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> I think it is disingenuous to blame the delays on a backlog at Arianespace. The problem with DIRECTV 14 is that of finding a suitable companion that is realistically ready to go. In the interim, launches are happening more or less apace.
> 
> It is also important to remember that DIRECTV 14 wasn't truly complete until last month (according to its manufacturer).


DirecTV-14's scheduled launch date has changed so many times I don't think any one cause could be assigned. That said, Arianespace had set a goal of 12 launches this year. Back in April or May they were still saying that they were on track to meet that goal. As of today, however, they have only managed 7 launches. It is HIGHLY unlikely that they will do 5 more before the end of the year, so things HAVE slipped on Ariane's part. I would also assume that SSL, Astrium, DirecTV and Arianespace are jointly privy to far more detailed information than are we. DirecTV-14 may well have been "finished" only last month because it was known that it wouldn't fly until late 2014 at the earliest, so there was little point in rushing the missing part.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> I think it is disingenuous to blame the delays on a backlog at Arianespace. The problem with DIRECTV 14 is that of finding a suitable companion that is realistically ready to go.


So you believe it's the customer's responsibility to find a companion payload to share the launch vehicle? I think it's a good thing that you're not running a launch services provider.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> So you believe it's the customer's responsibility to find a companion payload to share the launch vehicle?


In view of the fact that Arianespace doesn't manufacture satellites, what would you have them do?


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> In view of the fact that Arianespace doesn't manufacture satellites, what would you have them do?


I'd say frankly that is AS' problem.

They are the ones who choose this business model of the duel payload requirement for each launch. So its up to them to make it work efficiently.

From the RB-1 & 2 ME requests ...



> _[t]he Ariane 5's business model is based on launching two commercial_
> _telecommunications satellites at a time, which usually means pairing one_
> _large satellite with one that is much smaller. The difficulty of finding two_
> _satellites ready for launch at the same time with a combined weight that_
> _fits into the Ariane 5 *has long been one of the challenges for*_
> *Arianespace*


As you can see the "challenges" are for "AS" to work out. not the satellite manufacturer.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> They are the ones who choose this business model of the duel payload requirement for each launch. So its up to them to make it work efficiently.


DIRECTV knew what they were getting into by agreeing to share a vehicle and I'm sure it was financially very appealing. They also knew that the Proton/Briz-M wasn't up to the task with its 6 metric ton GTO payload capability. The recent ILS failure rate was icing on the cupcake.

Sea Launch, with all of their complications was also not up to the task with a 6.066 metric ton launch capacity.

Looking at the table of options on Wikipedia, DIRECTV has set themselves up for something that has five solo options:

1. Ariane 5 (several configurations)
2. Atlas V (421 or 531)
3. Delta IV-M+(5,4)
4. SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
5. Mitsubishi H-IIB


----------



## Drew2k

harsh said:


> DIRECTV has set themselves up for *something* that has five solo options:1. Ariane 5 (several configurations)2. Atlas V (421 or 531)3. Delta IV-M+(5,4)4. SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.15. Mitsubishi H-IIB


"something"?


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:



> DIRECTV knew what they were getting into by agreeing to share a vehicle and I'm sure it was financially very appealing. They also knew that the Proton/Briz-M wasn't up to the task with its 6 metric ton GTO payload capability. The recent ILS failure rate was icing on the cupcake.
> 
> Sea Launch, with all of their complications was also not up to the task with a 6.066 metric ton launch capacity.
> 
> Looking at the table of options on Wikipedia, DIRECTV has set themselves up for something that has five solo options:
> 
> 1. Ariane 5 (several configurations)
> 2. Atlas V (421 or 531)
> 3. Delta IV-M+(5,4)
> 4. SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
> 5. Mitsubishi H-IIB


But I never read anywhere that DIRECTV was complaining about the launch delays at Arianespace.

In fact they complemented AS quite highly in their ME requests.

But nevertheless, AS is indeed running behind schedule through no fault of DIRECTV, resulting in a continued slippage in D14 & 15's launch windows. And the manufacturing delays for the birds at SS/L and SAS Astrium have nothing to do with it.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> In view of the fact that Arianespace doesn't manufacture satellites, what would you have them do?


Oh, something crazy....like honor the contract they signed.

DirecTV contracted with Arianespace to launch a satellite of a specific weight, under specific conditions. It is not DirecTV's responsibility to "find" an appropriate launch companion, it is the responsibility of the company that said they could do it, and that's Arianespace.

At some point, if no smaller spacecrafts can be found, AS may find itself in the uncomfortable position of doing launches with dummy companion payloads.


----------



## HarleyD

HoTat2 said:


> But I never read anywhere that DIRECTV was complaining about the launch delays at Arianespace.
> 
> In fact they complemented AS quite highly in their ME requests.
> 
> But nevertheless, AS is indeed running behind schedule through no fault of DIRECTV, resulting in a continued slippage in D14 & 15's launch windows. And the manufacturing delays for the birds at SS/L and SAS Astrium have nothing to do with it.


Which indirectly reinforces the assumption/expectation by many that these new birds are not going to yield an immediate influx of additional HD programming...or programming of any sort.

If there were agreements and partners in the can waiting for these new additions to light up then there would be more urgency surrounding this. The willingness to proceed at a deliberate pace by all parties would seem to indicate that these launches are steps toward something further out...much to the consternation of the casual observer who only wants to see them go up and become active.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> Oh, something crazy....like honor the contract they signed.


Do you suppose things could have been different if DIRECTV 14 had been ready earlier? There have been quite a few small payloads go up since the beginning of the year.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> But I never read anywhere that DIRECTV was complaining about the launch delays at Arianespace.


You didn't read your post 1628?

If they aren't complaining about it, they are certainly trying to leverage it.


----------



## harsh

Drew2k said:


> "something"?


A new class of super-heavy communications satellites that are heavier than 6 metric tons when prepared for launch.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> It isn't as though D14 is the only satellite being built at any one time by its manufacturer. As the launch is delayed, they might de-prioritize finishing its build in favor of building other satellites that maybe don't have delays or where they will face financial penalties for not getting it completed by the scheduled time.


Are you suggesting that Arianespace involve itself in prioritizing the manufacturing capacity?


----------



## HarleyD

harsh said:


> Are you suggesting that Arianespace involve itself in prioritizing the manufacturing capacity?


How you pulled that out his statement is...well, astounding.

If the need-by date for the finished product slips, the manufacturer can and often will re-allocate their finite internal resources in accordance with changes to delivery deadlines. If SSL sees that they no longer have to have D14 buttoned up and ready to go by the original date then they are freed up to refocus on other deliverables whose dates have not slipped.

Arianespace has no role in SSL's decisions other than the impact that AS's launch delays have the drop dead date for the finished bird. SSL didn't have to do anything with their manufacturing schedule. That they choose to is their decision alone.


----------



## HarleyD

harsh said:


> Do you suppose things could have been different if DIRECTV 14 had been ready earlier? There have been quite a few small payloads go up since the beginning of the year.


Possibly different in a bad way since one of the documents in support of the ME request, a letter from SSL on the state of the manufacture states in part...

"the desire to do additional work on the satellite to eliminate a situation experienced by another satellite manufactured by SSL."

This was not the sole factor in delay. Subcontractor selection, manufacturing processes and technical challenges are also cited but are not explicitly said to be exclusive of the additional work.

It goes on to state that the ready-to-ship-date supports the current Ariane 5 schedule based on our current knowledge of the Arianespace manifest.

There is nothing stated or insinuated by anyone at any point that AS would have gotten this thing up already...or sooner than the current TBD... if it had only been completed sooner.


----------



## slice1900

HarleyD said:


> If there were agreements and partners in the can waiting for these new additions to light up then there would be more urgency surrounding this. The willingness to proceed at a deliberate pace by all parties would seem to indicate that these launches are steps toward something further out...much to the consternation of the casual observer who only wants to see them go up and become active.


Given that Directv has little or no control over when D14 is launched, they'd be unlikely to provide hard dates in any agreements regarding any addition of HD channels they don't plan to include until it is launched. They'd use some hand waving language like "when additional capacity is made available by future satellite launches".

I'm not sure why you're so skeptical that D14 will add additional capacity. It has a full set of CONUS transponders for Ka hi, and is going to 99*. Currently Directv has no Ka hi capability from 99*, but all HD dishes can receive it and receivers will do so with a software update, just like how Ka hi was added to 103 when D12 launched. This will add about a third more capacity for CONUS HD channels above what they have today. Whether all of that will actually be used for HD, or a portion will be used for MPEG4 SD mirrors of other content such as that on 95 and 119 is unknown.

The "steps towards something further out" is the RDBS capacity.


----------



## HarleyD

It will add capacity. I just don't expect it to add programming right away.

I also believe that if they had a signed carriage agreement in hand for any new HD, they would make room for it. I don't believe their existing bandwidth is fully tapped out. It's getting thin, but it isn't exhausted.

And since carriage agreements have a hard end date I would be very surprised if they entered into one with the knowledge that could languish for months before it lit up.

I'm happy with what they're doing. I expect more channels. Both new HD and HD versions of what is now only SD and I expect that D14 and D15 are going to facilitate that.

I just don't think there is anything standing by in the "as soon as D14 is in service" queue.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> You didn't read your post 1628?
> 
> If they aren't complaining about it, they are certainly trying to leverage it.


Well that may be your perception of it;

But I see nothing in what DIRECTV states in those ME/wavier requests that necessarily suggest any such complaining about AS or even a hint of it.

They're merely explaining to the FCC how among others, the backlog at AS is one of the reasons they are unable to meet the final milestone requirement for RB-1 & 2. And how it is through no fault of their own is all.

Quite apparent really ...


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Do you suppose things could have been different if DIRECTV 14 had been ready earlier? There have been quite a few small payloads go up since the beginning of the year.


And they all already had partners, didn't they?

Honestly, I just don't get why you insist on spinning EVERY SINGLE discussion point into a criticism of DirecTV. There are certainly things about DirecTV that justify complaints (though you'd have to be a subscriber to know most of them) just as there are about Dish, Verizon, Comcast, Charter, Cox, AT&T and any other corporation doing business anywhere. There is no need to create more, yet you seem to delight in doing so.

You are obviously free to post whatever you like, and I'm not even singling you out, but it is just a puzzle to me what you and some other posters get out of the experience. :shrug:


----------



## LameLefty

Attention-seeking behavior is quite common among a certain type of person ...

That said, there's a reason why (as I pointed out several days ago, ahem) that Arianespace is pursuing development of the Ariane 6 for solitary launches. 

Furthermore, I can GUARANTEE YOU that the contracts between any launch provider and their customers provide for many, many different contingencies and who bears the financial risk for each and every one of them.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> Honestly, I just don't get why you insist on spinning EVERY SINGLE discussion point into a criticism of DirecTV.


I like to think of them as possible answers and insight into why the launches haven't happened and how to identify clues such that we may collectively develop a sense of when they might.

A thread like this isn't about the joy-joy or fortifying the party line -- it is about gaining insight into a rather complex process.


----------



## James Long

It should be about the actual launch of D-14 ... not theoretical musings about the satellite launch industry in general. People should not be posting answers to questions that they do not know the answers to. Especially definitive statements.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> I'm not sure why you're so skeptical that D14 will add additional capacity.


Not to speak for HarleyD, but I think this may be an effort to temper expectations.

It is likely that there will be much additional bandwidth available upon successful deployment but it isn't entirely reasonable to expect that DIRECTV will embark on a blitzkrieg to carry anything and everything as soon as the bandwidth becomes available.


----------



## James Long

There is not a lot of "anything and everything" left to carry. The "blitzkrieg" could be a dozen channels ... then the rest of the bandwidth can be used for 4K or channels practically no one wants. (See the anticipation thread for discussion.)


----------



## HoTat2

James Long said:


> There is not a lot of "anything and everything" left to carry. The "blitzkrieg" could be a dozen channels ... *then the rest of the bandwidth can be used for 4K or channels practically no one wants. (See the anticipation thread for discussion.)*


As well as space for adding more HD versions of SD channels they already carry ...


----------



## James Long

HoTat2 said:


> As well as space for adding more HD versions of SD channels they already carry ...


I was including those in the dozen channels. 
If any other channels currently only being distributed to carriers in SD decide to upgrade to HD, DirecTV will have the room to carry them. By the end of 2015 I hope the anticipation thread is people begging DirecTV to add the paid program/infomercial channels in HD. And begging the remaining SD channels to upgrade their distribution so that there is a HD feed to carry.


----------



## slice1900

I don't think anyone expects Directv to carry "everything". There will always be disputes over what particular content is worth, or the potential interest level of subscribers. They'll be in a position to carry anything they are willing to pay for. Most MVPDs are limited in some fashion and have to make choices based on capacity, which inevitably displeases some segment of their customer base.

Time will tell how much of a difference it makes in reality...I agree with James that there isn't much left out there to carry, at least for US programming.

One thing I'm curious about is whether the _ability to receive_ could be an issue in some cases. I'm really not sure whether those massive dishes I've seen pictures of at Directv's LABC receive "everything" broadcast commercially in the US, or are missing a few LNBs for particular satellites that might carry the HD version of a channel people wish Directv would carry. Certainly that's an issue for international content, as there's half a world of satellites that can't be seen from Directv's western US based broadcast centers.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> One thing I'm curious about is whether the _ability to receive_ could be an issue in some cases. I'm really not sure whether those massive dishes I've seen pictures of at Directv's LABC receive "everything" broadcast commercially in the US, or are missing a few LNBs for particular satellites that might carry the HD version of a channel people wish Directv would carry. Certainly that's an issue for international content, as there's half a world of satellites that can't be seen from Directv's western US based broadcast centers.


I do not believe reception is an issue for US based channels. Those channels are going to place themselves on satellites that can be received by any cable or satellite carrier in the US. And the last time I looked the distribution satellites seemed to be over the western US more than the eastern US. International content may be an issue ... but again I would look to the channels that want US distribution getting their signals to a satellite with US coverage.


----------



## inkahauts

I think directv may have several agreements where stations say you can have us in sd only or Hi Definition and sd and it's all the same price and up to you which you do. And those stations Id expect to get flipped pretty fast since they wouldn't cost anymore. Things like qvc and other tiny channels are the ones Im thinking of. (Qvc pays to be on so...)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> I don't think anyone expects Directv to carry "everything". There will always be disputes over what particular content is worth, or the potential interest level of subscribers. They'll be in a position to carry anything they are willing to pay for. Most MVPDs are limited in some fashion and have to make choices based on capacity, which inevitably displeases some segment of their customer base.
> 
> Time will tell how much of a difference it makes in reality...I agree with James that there isn't much left out there to carry, at least for US programming.
> 
> One thing I'm curious about is whether the _ability to receive_ could be an issue in some cases. I'm really not sure whether those massive dishes I've seen pictures of at Directv's LABC receive "everything" broadcast commercially in the US, or are missing a few LNBs for particular satellites that might carry the HD version of a channel people wish Directv would carry. Certainly that's an issue for international content, as there's half a world of satellites that can't be seen from Directv's western US based broadcast centers.


Somewhat related to this, I've always been rather curious as to what method (or what primary one at least) DIRECTV and DISH use to monitor the channel quality and other performance of the downlink portion of all their local spotbeams from the various satellites spread over the CONUS, Al, HI, and now PR (for DIRECTV that is)?

Obviously, most of the SB footprints do not happen to cover a broadcast center or other uplink station.

Do they use their points-of-presence (or "LRFs") in each local market to back-haul their own local SB feeds for monitoring in addition to the local TV stations initial feeds to them as well?

Got to believe its something more sophisticated then someone in a local market simply getting on a phone and calling DIRECTV or DISH's network operations and saying ...

"Hey .... you guys local channels are messed up over here!," and then trying to describe the problems they see.


----------



## P Smith

I've seen on dish (when these was FTA) some channels in 999x range with a map of US where a few spots dynamically shows signal levels from each sat; the points was spread across CONUS, HI, Alaska ... Perhaps DTV has similar online monitoring system. No, not seen SB points that time.


----------



## longrider

HoTat2 said:


> Somewhat related to this, I've always been rather curious as to what method (or what primary one at least) DIRECTV and DISH use to monitor the channel quality and other performance of the downlink portion of all their local spotbeams from the various satellites spread over the CONUS, Al, HI, and now PR (for DIRECTV that is)?
> 
> Obviously, most of the SB footprints do not happen to cover a broadcast center or other uplink station.
> 
> Do they use their points-of-presence (or "LRFs") in each local market to back-haul their own local SB feeds for monitoring in addition to the local TV stations initial feeds to them as well?
> 
> Got to believe its something more sophisticated then someone in a local market simply getting on a phone and calling DIRECTV or DISH's network operations and saying ...
> 
> "Hey .... you guys local channels are messed up over here!," and then trying to describe the problems they see.


I dont think that kind of monitoring is really that critical. Short of a transponder failure (which I am sure they have monitoring for under every spotbeam) if the broadcast center sends up a good signal a good signal will come back down. any issues with locals would be either reception by the LRF or the backhaul to the broadcast center


----------



## HoTat2

longrider said:


> I dont think that kind of monitoring is really that critical. Short of a transponder failure (which I am sure they have monitoring for under every spotbeam) if the broadcast center sends up a good signal a good signal will come back down. any issues with locals would be either reception by the LRF or the backhaul to the broadcast center


Possibly;

It's just that almost every FCC license application for a Ka or Ku band satellite earth station I read on file for DIRECTV list both transmit and receive capability along with their respective specifications.

So I assumed they are designed that way for the ability to simultaneously monitor the station's uplinks and downlinks.

Now I can see obviously how this earth station receive capability would to used for CONUS beam downlinks. But not all the spots of course.


----------



## HarleyD

harsh said:


> I like to think of them as possible answers and insight into why the launches haven't happened and how to identify clues such that we may collectively develop a sense of when they might.
> 
> A thread like this isn't about the joy-joy or fortifying the party line -- it is about gaining insight into a rather complex process.


I don't see the joy-joy in this thread that you reference and the phrase "party line" is ill chosen and almost offensive because it implies the dissemination of mindless propaganda and "doing what you're told". Proselytizing. And nobody, not the posters here, not Arianespace, not SSL, not you...nobody has painted a scenario, speculative or otherwise, where this delay is the fault of DirecTV so I am confused as to whose party this line belongs to.

What I do see is that people are keeping their heads in the face of delays beyond the expected deployment rather than resorting to wailing and gnashing of the teeth. Maybe that's because we are in a very different position than we were in 2007 when D10 was on deck. We aren't getting by on a meager 10 HD channels with a whole queue of programming we could have if only there was bandwidth to provide it.

Instead there are now dozens of HD channels available on DirecTV including the most popular and widely viewed. Is it every possible HD channel that could be had? No, of course not. No content provider can make that claim either. However what remains to be upgraded to HD or added appeals to a narrower spectrum of subscribers. The vast majority of the subscribers are well served with HD content. If that were not the case there would almost certainly not be the "joy-joy" atmosphere as you call it.

So since we aren't tracking the launch, IOT and finally lighting up of the satellite to the masses as we expected we would probably be doing at this point, we are instead speculating about possible causes of the delay and remaining calm. The overall tone is positive, yes. Would fatalism and frustration be better?

The alternatives to positive conjecture would be to mothball the thread until something concrete happens...or wail and gnash.

I'm OK with positive conjecture. Perhaps you are not.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Somewhat related to this, I've always been rather curious as to what method (or what primary one at least) DIRECTV and DISH use to monitor the channel quality and other performance of the downlink portion of all their local spotbeams from the various satellites spread over the CONUS, Al, HI, and now PR (for DIRECTV that is)?
> 
> Obviously, most of the SB footprints do not happen to cover a broadcast center or other uplink station.
> 
> Do they use their points-of-presence (or "LRFs") in each local market to back-haul their own local SB feeds for monitoring in addition to the local TV stations initial feeds to them as well?
> 
> Got to believe its something more sophisticated then someone in a local market simply getting on a phone and calling DIRECTV or DISH's network operations and saying ...
> 
> "Hey .... you guys local channels are messed up over here!," and then trying to describe the problems they see.


I'm still wanting to know exactly how the Ka band capacity on 101 figures into Directv's LiL delivery. Is it used for getting LiLs to the customers? Or used for getting the signals received by the LRFs in the spot beams back to the broadcast centers for quality control?

Regardless of what it is used for, the only question I'd have is how signals from dozens of LRFs all over the country aimed up at 101 can be combined onto 250 and 500 MHz wide downlinks. Wouldn't that require some processing ability on the satellite, which I thought only SW1 and SW2 possessed? So I assume they really aren't modulating a signal that wide.

Additionally, the bandwidth required by 3300 LiLs is greater than the 2000 MHz they have available, unless they're using some very high end modulation and minimal error correction - which they might, given that it doesn't need to be received by cheap home user equipment.


----------



## James Long

Signals are backhauled to an uplink center that can combine them and uplink them.

Dozens of LRFs is an understatement. There are hundreds of markets to serve. Even if DirecTV could combine every LRF with a neighboring market or two, there would be more than dozens of LRFs.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> Signals are backhauled to an uplink center that can combine them and uplink them.
> 
> Dozens of LRFs is an understatement. There are hundreds of markets to serve. Even if DirecTV could combine every LRF with a neighboring market or two, there would be more than dozens of LRFs.


Yes, I understand that, but that doesn't require any additional satellite capacity such as the Ka at 101. Those uplink centers can uplink directly to 99/103. I don't think anyone knows the full picture of how Directv delivers their locals, and where the "backhaul" Ka capacity at 101 fits into that. At least, when I've asked the question before, no one is able to answer it.

As I understand it, satellites are licensed for certain blocks of spectrum for downlink and uplink, and the blocks are of equal size. So if you have a satellite licensed for Ka lo, it downlinks from 18300-18800 MHz in two polarities, and uplinks 500 MHz of spectrum from somewhere around 29000 MHz in two polarities. Content is uplinked to the satellite, an LO changes its frequency, it is amplified, then it is sent down to our dishes.

Spot beams re-use the same frequencies over and over again in a dozen or so locations in the US, with a different dozen locations for each transponder frequency to produce a different spot beam for each DMA. If there isn't additional uplink bandwidth, these satellites must have "spot receivers" that only receive signals from certain locations, to allow uplinks from multiple locations using the same transponder frequency.

Therefore the uplinks of locals all over the country can't take place from Directv's two main broadcast centers, but have to occur from a number of different locations in the country - however many times the same transponder can be re-used nationwide for spot beams, at a minimum. I suppose if you dig in the FCC filings, you might be able to find out where the "spot receivers" on a given satellite are aimed? I am assuming these what Directv calls their "uplink centers".

Since the 101 sats downlink their Ka spot beams only to the two main broadcast centers in LA and Colorado, I don't think it is possible it can be used in the LiL delivery process. This capacity must be used elsewhere. To deliver whatever isn't delivered by other means to the broadcast centers for monitoring seems about the only way I could see it being used, since the broadcast centers can't receive all those spot beams aimed elsewhere.


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> ...
> 
> Additionally, the bandwidth required by 3300 LiLs is greater than the 2000 MHz they have available...


they do reuse same freq/tpn from the 2000 MHz for different SB

Also you could use Gary's tables to make charts what sat/tpn is used for each SB


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> Yes, I understand that, but that doesn't require any additional satellite capacity such as the Ka at 101. Those uplink centers can uplink directly to 99/103. I don't think anyone knows the full picture of how Directv delivers their locals, and where the "backhaul" Ka capacity at 101 fits into that. At least, when I've asked the question before, no one is able to answer it.


Perhaps someone will be kind enough to break it down as it relates specifically to DirecTV satellites and the network of connections that feeds them.

The best place to start if one wants all of the gory details is the Schedule S filing DirecTV makes with the FCC when filing for launch authority for a new satellite. It will show how the bandwidth is divided into transponders and all of the uplink and downlink beams and how they are connected. Frequency reuse is planned on both uplink and downlink. Each uplink location can only uplink once on each uplink transponder frequency ... if a selection of downlink transponders are set aside for spot beams the reuse is mapped out so they do not cause conflicts.

Imagine a theoretical satellite divided into 24 transponders. Imagine that the designer has set it up so that 16 of the downlink transponder frequencies will be used for ConUS national beams covering the entire US (and possibly Alaska and Hawaii with a specially shaped ConUS beam) and that the other 8 downlink transponder frequencies will be used for spot beams. Then imagine six uplink beams ... antenna beams on the satellite that are aimed at six locations within the US that do not overlap. Each uplink center can transmit on each of the 24 uplink frequencies ... six times 24 is 144. Sixteen of those uplinks are needed for the ConUS beams leaving (at most) 128 uplinks for spots. Multiple spots frequencies can (and do) use the same downlink spots. Basically each area can get UP TO eight spots (on this theoretical satellite).

Look at the Schedule S data to see what is actually happening. Nearly all of what the satellite does is a simple retransmission ... RF in is RF out ... but it is not a simple block conversion where R01 always equals T01 frequencies. The tables in the Schedule S data will show what uplink beam and frequency matches what downlink beam and frequency.

BTW: Backhauls to a satellite uplink center do not have to be via satellite. DISH uses a fiberoptics network to connect every market in the US to each other and their uplink sites. Someone more familiar with DirecTV should be able to help out with how DirecTV does their backhauls.


----------



## damondlt

James Long said:


> BTW: Backhauls to a satellite uplink center do not have to be via satellite. DISH uses a fiberoptics network to connect every market in the US to each other and their uplink sites. Someone more familiar with DirecTV should be able to help out with how DirecTV does their backhauls.


I believe directv does the same.
We lost a fiber optic tower a few years back due to an icestorm, and we had no directv locals for over a week.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> they do reuse same freq/tpn from the 2000 MHz for different SB
> 
> Also you could use Gary's tables to make charts what sat/tpn is used for each SB


I'm talking about the 2000 MHz of Ka from 101. There is no frequency re-use possible there, because there are only two spots directed at the LA and Colorado broadcast centers.


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> I'm talking about the 2000 MHz of Ka from 101. There is no frequency re-use possible there, because there are only two spots directed at the LA and Colorado broadcast centers.


I think those may be for the conus channels being broadcast from channels facitilities. FOX sports has a massive one in Texas for example, so maybe they get their stuff via sat to DIRECTV that way... But don't know... It may also be for redundancy of multiple uplink sites...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> I think those may be for the conus channels being broadcast from channels facitilities. FOX sports has a massive one in Texas for example, so maybe they get their stuff via sat to DIRECTV that way... But don't know... It may also be for redundancy of multiple uplink sites...


Well, I've heard it stated here that the Ka capacity is used to "backhaul locals", but who knows where the people who say that got that from.

Gunter's space page for D8 says "The Ka-band payload uses the full 1,000 MHz of Ka-band communications bandwidth available to link DirecTV facilities as part of DirecTV's dramatic infrastructure development for the launch of local digital and high definition services in the Ka-band." That sort of language has got to be from a Directv press release 

That doesn't really say anything specific that it is only locals, so who knows, maybe it is used for some sort of a backup link between the two broadcast centers in case the fiber goes out.


----------



## James Long

Anything uplinking to that space would require licenses. The licenses would specify the location (101) and the band (Ka).


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Well, I've heard it stated here that the Ka capacity is used to "backhaul locals", but who knows where the people who say that got that from.
> 
> Gunter's space page for D8 says "The Ka-band payload uses the full 1,000 MHz of Ka-band communications bandwidth available to link DirecTV facilities as part of DirecTV's dramatic infrastructure development for the launch of local digital and high definition services in the Ka-band." That sort of language has got to be from a Directv press release
> 
> That doesn't really say anything specific that it is only locals, so who knows, maybe it is used for some sort of a backup link between the two broadcast centers in case the fiber goes out.


Well ... from everything I've been able to understand on this issue, which is hard considering the specifics of DIRECTV's local channel back-haul network is corporate propriety and not public information.

But essentially the many LRFs send their local channels to large aggregation points chiefly by fiber where they are either uplinked by satellite back-haul links like the Ka band payloads at 101 or sent by fiberoptic cable to the main broadcast centers at LA and Castle Rock. From there the signals are monitored and processed and the main centers' share of the local channels are uplinked to the various Ku and Ka satellites for broadcast to subscribers. Other locals are sent out to smaller remote controlled uplink sites such as SWUF, NWUF, MWUF, NEUF, ECUF etc. facilities again by satellite back-haul or fiberoptic links for uplink to the DIRECTV fleet as well for broadcast.

Now the FCC file documentation does indeed say the Ka band payloads aboard D8 and D9S are to be used for local channel back-haul. But exactly how they are integrated in is questionable without more details of the specific architecture of the network.

The payload on D8 is somewhat understandable, with four 1 or 2 250 MHz wide channel uplink receive spotbeams from aggregation centers in Seattle, Atlanta, and NY. Also an uplink from Castle Rock that serves as an alternate communication path to the LA Broadcast Center. But while the downlink to LABC makes sense, there is a second downlink beam option to Kansas City. What's in Kansas City?

The Ka payload on D9S is really hard understand. 1 500 MHz wide channel each for a receive uplink spotbeam from the LABC and a regional broadcast center in Boise, ID. "Boise, ID?" What sort of broadcast center is there?

And the downlinks go to either the MWUF in Oakdale Minn. Or the SWUF near Tuson Ariz.

Now why downlink beams to just those two lesser uplink facilities and none of the others I have no idea.

Unless perhaps those two were the only lesser Ka uplink ones in existence when D9S was built? .


----------



## slice1900

Thanks for going into the docs and finding that. I could have sworn the downlinks only went to the main broadcast facilities, but I must have been thinking of something else.

However, based how few sites there are uplinking to D8 & D9S in Ka band, and given the lack of greater uplink vs downlink bandwidth for the satellites providing local spotbeams from 99 & 103, [email protected] can't be in the signal path for delivering locals to subscribers.

Obviously it is used for something, but locals would need to be uplinked to the spotbeam satellites at 99 and 103 from at least as many locations as there are spotbeams per transponder frequency.

As for the beams to KC and Boise, is it isn't known what Directv has there, perhaps they had plans on the drawing board for building something in those locations? Or maybe it has something to do with a former relationship, does Hughes have something there? Or to do with a potential new relationship they wanted to be prepared for, does some other satellite company like Dish have anything there?


----------



## harsh

SURPRISE UPDATE:

Salo's schedule now places VA221 back on the schedule with DIRECTV 14 and GSAT 16 for mid/end December 2014. The "addition" advice was posted by "Jester".

The DIRECTV 14/GSAT 16 pairing had been assigned to VA221 on May 5th. The rocket was reassigned to the combination of Thor 7 and Sicral 2/Syracuse 3C back on May 20th.

So much for my conjecture about the pair being too heavy (9.902 metric tons) and ISRO stating on July 16th that they were going to launch GSAT 15 first and then GSAT 16 by mid-year 2015.

Assuming the launch is successful, DIRECTV may be able to put DIRECTV 14 into service just in time for the annual price increase.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Assuming the launch is successful, DIRECTV may be able to put DIRECTV 14 into service just in time for the annual price increase.


Always finding a way to spin something as a negative for Directv or their customers, aren't you? You must have put a lot of thought into how to portray D14 being taken off TBD and assigned a launch slot as a bad thing.

As far as anyone else following this thread is concerned, it is only good news that it will (apparently) launch before the end of the year. Looking forward to seeing you find a way to spin some small mention in a press release of a brief issue that almost but didn't delay the launch as somehow foreshadowing potential disaster that will surely lead to a short life for D14!


----------



## HarleyD

harsh said:


> SURPRISE UPDATE:
> 
> Salo's schedule now places VA221 back on the schedule with DIRECTV 14 and GSAT 16 for mid/end December 2014. The "addition" advice was posted by "Jester".
> 
> The DIRECTV 14/GSAT 16 pairing had been assigned to VA221 on May 5th. The rocket was reassigned to the combination of Thor 7 and Sicral 2/Syracuse 3C back on May 20th.
> 
> So much for my conjecture about the pair being too heavy (9.902 metric tons) and ISRO stating on July 16th that they were going to launch GSAT 15 first and then GSAT 16 by mid-year 2015.
> 
> Assuming the launch is successful, DIRECTV may be able to put DIRECTV 14 into service just in time for the annual price increase.


Thanks for the update.


----------



## woj027

slice1900 said:


> Always finding a way to spin something as a negative for Directv or their customers, aren't you? You must have put a lot of thought into how to portray D14 being taken off TBD and assigned a launch slot as a bad thing.
> 
> As far as anyone else following this thread is concerned, it is only good news that it will (apparently) launch before the end of the year. Looking forward to seeing you find a way to spin some small mention in a press release of a brief issue that almost but didn't delay the launch as somehow foreshadowing potential disaster that will surely lead to a short life for D14!


My view on Harsh's comment was to mean "It cost more money to launch a satellite. That's why we need money". So the timing works

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## inkahauts

woj027 said:


> My view on Harsh's comment was to mean "It cost more money to launch a satellite. That's why we need money". So the timing works
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Your interpretation is off based on history.


----------



## HoTat2

inkahauts said:


> Your interpretation is off based on history.


I think woj027 was speaking about harsh's possible interpretation, not his. 

Therefore, perhaps you should say if this is indeed the meaning behind "harsh's" latest negative spin on good news of D14's possible launch before year's end, then his (i.e. harsh's) interpretation is way off.


----------



## HoTat2

trankhoavna said:


> If everything goes smoothly with reverse DBS I could see them putting it at the 101


Well ... several problems with that;

1) DIRECTV has no RDBS license for service at 101 W.L.

2) The FCC requires a 4 degree minimum orbital separation between RDBS satellite stations.

3) There are unresolved "space path" interference possibilities involved with co-locating RDBS stations with standard Ku band DBS ones. Since you would have strong RDBS satellite downlink signals being transmitted in very close proximity to DBS stations' uplink receivers operating within the same band.


----------



## slice1900

Directv will have more bandwidth than they know what to do with after D14 and D15 launch. They currently have 44 CONUS Ka transponders being used for HD, and will be adding 14 or 16 additional CONUS Ka transponders with D14. In addition, between D14 and D15 they'll add 36 more CONUS Ka transponders on RDBS between D14 and D15. That will more than double their CONUS bandwidth currently being used for HD!

In a few years when MPEG2 is retired, they'll gain 26 CONUS Ku transponders from 101. They are narrower, but due to reduced need for error correction and higher order modulation possible provide essentially the same bit rate as their Ka transponders. Which all told would be a 150% increase over what they can currently devote to HD.

Unless 4K exceeds everyone's most wild and optimistic projections for uptake and demand, they will never have to worry about bandwidth again. Even if they were allowed to do RDBS from 101, I don't see why they would - unless they need more bandwidth to complement Ka from 101 for their internal needs.


----------



## harsh

Based on information from Hindi Times, Salo updated his schedule this morning to reflect a December 6 launch date for GSAT 16, the companion load for DIRECTV 14.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/isro-advances-gsat16-launch-by-6-months/article6410890.ece


----------



## P Smith

Hindi Times ? From India ? Strange source ...


----------



## yosoyellobo

P Smith said:


> Hindi Times ? From India ? Strange source ...


What is so strange about it. They seen to know every time my computer is having problems.


----------



## inkahauts

!rolling


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> Hindi Times ? From India ? Strange source ...


It isn't strange if you understand that GSAT 16 will be property of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).

Other Indian publications (Mint, Zee News) had articles back in July that put the GSAT 16 launch at mid-year 2015 according to what ISRO was saying then.


----------



## HoTat2

OK, so then based on this latest news about GSAT-16, can we say there's a firm launch date of Dec. 6 for D14/RB-1 (primary payload) and the companion GSAT-16 (secondary payload)?


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> OK, so then based on this latest news about GSAT-16, can we say there's a firm launch date of Dec. 6 for D14/RB-1 (primary payload) and the companion GSAT-16 (secondary payload)?


Based on the widely circulated ISRO press release, it would appear so. Given their recent history with launch information, I'm ever so slightly dubious.

Arianespace usually starts posting mission updates with launch dates a month or so before the launch.


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> OK, so then based on this latest news about GSAT-16, can we say there's a firm launch date of Dec. 6 for D14/RB-1 (primary payload) and the companion GSAT-16 (secondary payload)?


Not sure about D14 operational date, but the GSAT-16 should be up and running soon at 55E, and it will be interesting to see how soon and what will be on it ...


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> Not sure about D14 operational date, but the GSAT-16 should be up and running soon at 55E, and it will be interesting to see how soon and what will be on it ...


It might be interesting if not for the fact that it won't be visible from this hemisphere and isn't much like any of the modern CONUS DBS birds.

Because I wasn't following the progress of DIRECTV 5,6,7S, 8 and 9S it will be interesting to me to see if DIRECTV 14 takes more or less time than the 4-6 months it took to bring DIRECTV 10-12 into service. Following DLA-1 should be instructional in terms of the time to the GSO test slot. DIRECTV 9S was the last DIRECTV SS/L LS-1300 to launch on an Ariane 5 ECA back in October 2006 but its post-launch timeline evades me.

Comparing DLA-1 to DLA-2 should give us a good Ariane 5 .vs. Proton/Briz-M comparison.


----------



## slice1900

Doesn't a lot of it have to do with the launch trajectory and orbital insertion? With one load going to 99W and the other to 55E, they're practically halfway around the world from each other. One of the two is probably going to take a lot longer than the other to get where they each need to be.


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> Doesn't a lot of it have to do with the launch trajectory and orbital insertion? With one load going to 99W and the other to 55E, they're practically halfway around the world from each other. One of the two is probably going to take a lot longer than the other to get where they each need to be.


I wouldn't concern about time to reach final sat position for the sats; it's tests (rigorous) what seems to me accompanied all DTV sats. Incredible long period. As I know European sats taking normal load in 2 months period or less.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> I wouldn't concern about time to reach final sat position for the sats; it's tests (rigorous) what seems to me accompanied all DTV sats. Incredible long period. As I know European sats taking normal load in 2 months period or less.


Yes true;

While I can't speak for where GSAT16 will go or specifically do testing or otherwise before it reaches operational status at 55E. You need not assume because D14's assignment spot is at 99W (99.235W to be exact) the satellite is going directly there following launch and orbit raising.

It may go to some other GSO slot initially for a period of "in orbit testing" (IOT) before being drifted over to 99W.

Look for a number of the usual "Special Temporary Authority" (STA) filings with the FCC in support of orbit raising, IOT, and any other preliminary activities for D14 as we draw closer to and following it's launch date.


----------



## P Smith

we will split out watching objects


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> You need not assume because D14's assignment spot is at 99W (99.235W to be exact) the satellite is going directly there following launch and orbit raising.


For example, DIRECTV 12 (callsign S2797)/RB-2a (callsign S2796) tested near 76W before being located at 102.765W

For reference on older satellite callsigns, see LameLefty's handiwork here:

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/170004-directv-satellite-discussion-d-14/?p=2617846

Note that each payload, whether Ku, Ka, RDBS, has its own callsign. This is why the buses for DIRECTV 8, DIRECTV 9, DIRECTV 12 and DIRECTV 14 have two callsigns. In the case of DIRECTV 1 and DIRECTV 6, the callsigns were changed when the satellites were de-orbited.

The later DIRECTV 5 callsign was assigned when it was repurposed from 72.5W to replace DIRECTV 6 at 110W.

For those not on his list:
S2930 DIRECTV 15
S2893 KU-45W
S2888 KU-76W
S2861 KU-79W

DIRECTV surrendered RB-4 in 2011. I haven't been able to figure out what they're going to do, if anything with RB-2.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> ... I haven't been able to figure out what they're going to do, if anything with RB-2.


RB-2 will be part of D15 which is headed for 103W.

D15/RB-2.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> RB-2 will be part of D15 which is headed for 103W.


Any thoughts on how they reconcile RB-2 and RB-2a in the same slot?

The specs I've seen suggest that they're sharing uplink and downlink frequencies (unless I missed a modification).

The RB-2 payload could replace either RB-1 or RB-2a in a pinch. This fuels my suspicion that DIRECTV 15 is primarily a backup.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Any thoughts on how they reconcile RB-2 and RB-2a in the same slot?
> 
> The specs I've seen suggest that they're sharing uplink and downlink frequencies (unless I missed a modification).
> 
> The RB-2 payload could replace either RB-1 or RB-2a in a pinch. This fuels my suspicion that DIRECTV 15 is primarily a backup.


Simple;

RB-2A will be turned off, assuming it's even on now .... 

It's only a spotbeam payload to 4 markets that was likely used only for testing anyway.

Just like D11 at 99W also has a lesser capable RDBS payload for testing. Obviously it will not be used any longer once D14's RB-1 payload becomes operational.


----------



## slice1900

D15, like D14, contains a full 18 transponder CONUS RDBS payload.

The RDBS payload on D12 of four narrow spotbeam transponders. To my knowledge it has never been used for anything except testing. D12's RDBS payload would be shut down once D15 is operational, if it isn't already.

So Harsh's belief that D15 is a "backup" is not supported by the facts, at least as far as RDBS goes. The rest of D15's payload is CONUS Ku, which can't be used from 103 so that would only be used if it moves to another location later in its life, and CONUS Ka. I'm not sure if it is Ka lo or Ka hi, or can be used for either. In that sense it could be a backup for or a replacement for the CONUS Ka payload on D10 (Ka lo) or D12 (Ka hi) but it could not entirely replace either of those satellites as both also have Ka spotbeams. D15, unlike D14, has no spotbeam transponders.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> D15, like D14, contains a full 18 transponder CONUS RDBS payload.
> 
> The RDBS payload on D12 of four narrow spotbeam transponders. To my knowledge it has never been used for anything except testing. D12's RDBS payload would be shut down once D15 is operational, if it isn't already.
> 
> So Harsh's belief that D15 is a "backup" is not supported by the facts, at least as far as RDBS goes. The rest of D15's payload is CONUS Ku, which can't be used from 103 so that would only be used if it moves to another location later in its life, and CONUS Ka. I'm not sure if it is Ka lo or Ka hi, or can be used for either. In that sense it could be a backup for or a replacement for the CONUS Ka payload on D10 (Ka lo) or D12 (Ka hi) but it could not entirely replace either of those satellites as both also have Ka spotbeams. D15, unlike D14, has no spotbeam transponders.


To note;

D15/RB-1 has 38 total Ka CONUS transponders. 14 on the Ka-lo band and 24 on the Ka-hi. But only a maximum of 24 of the 38 transponders in any combination of lo or hi band ones can be active at any one time.

Therefore, beyond substituting for existing CONUS transponder on D10 or D12, it can actually increase the total CONUS transponder count by 8 more Ka-hi ones if the local spotbeams on SW1 are turned off.


----------



## slice1900

Since they aren't likely to shut off Ka hi spotbeams as it would disable locals for many DMAs, maybe that's intended for "in case it moves to 101 someday" it can take over the Ka hi coverage for internal use?


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Since they aren't likely to shut off Ka hi spotbeams as it would disable locals for many DMAs, maybe that's intended for "in case it moves to 101 someday" it can take over the Ka hi coverage for internal use?


It could;

But my thinking there was based on a combination of several factors.

1) D14/RB-1's local spotbeam footprints is stated in the FCC docs. to cover 69 DMAs. 

2) With more than ample local Ka spotbeam capacity from D14 and 11 on the hi and lo bands at 99W combined with D10 and 12 on the lo band at 103W, may have caused the decision for D15/RB-2 to have no local spotbeams. 

This could mean that DIRECTV sees there to be eventually no future need for local spotbeams on the Ka-hi band from 103W. 

3) According to the latest TPN maps SW1 is currently serving 39 local markets (or DMAs) with many channels feeding PR. So D14 may well cover all those within it's footprint of 69, 

4) Plus D14 and D15's ability to direct nationals by spotbeam into PR should be more than capable of fulfilling that role from SW1 and 2.


----------



## slice1900

Yes, but SW2 @99W carries about 35 Ka hi spot beams by my count (not including PR) and those have to be switched off for D14 to operate its spot beams. That doesn't leave enough of the 69 remaining to cover SW1's capacity as well, and even if it did, presumably they wish to add coverage for the dozen or so remaining DMAs.


----------



## inkahauts

Why would the need to switch off sw2? Those are amiable. They are spots and can shoot anywhere they want and hit places the fixed spots can't and then all be used at once right?


----------



## slice1900

That's true, I didn't think about that aspect of the Spaceways. I guess providing the frequencies and spot patterns work out they could have about 100 Ka hi spot beams in total from 99W between D14 and SW2. Then they'd have the option of switching off SW1 if they wanted to expand CONUS Ka hi coverage to all 24 tpns from 103 once D15 is in service. Even more bandwidth than what I think is already more than they know what to do with 

That makes me wonder - when the Spaceways need to be retired, I wonder if Directv would have any interest in launching another processing satellite that can aim spot beams? Having that ability would be really nice if one of your satellites had a spot beam go bad, or an entire spot beam capable satellite failed, as you'd be able to cover for it easily. The Spaceways look to have fuel left beyond 2020, so if they are otherwise healthy they wouldn't need to be in a big hurry, but if they were doing this they'd probably have to ask for bids in the next few years given build and launch timelines.


----------



## HoTat2

Yes, I agree we should stop talking about SW2 being shutdown once D14/RB-1 becomes operational.

It certainly can remain active and share spotbeam duties with D14 much as D10 and D12 probably do at 103W. Or D4S and D9S likewise do at 101W.

Though like SW1, SW2 will have to drop down to 4 transponders to avoid overlap into D14's CONUS 9/10 transponder pair.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

> DirecTV 14, built by Space Systems/Loral (SSL), will support Ka-band and reverse digital broadcast satellite spectrum for high quality broadcasts. The satellite is slated to launch with Arianespace this December. Following DirecTV 14 is DirecTV 15, which, built by Airbus Defence and Space, is scheduled for launch in the first half of 2015. Weighing in at 6,300kg, this 16-kW spacecraft will cover the continental U.S., along with Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico using Ku-, Ka- and reverse band beams. Both DirecTV 14 and DirecTV 15 will be dual launched on Ariane 5 rockets with other satellites.


http://www.satellitetoday.com/regional/2014/09/22/directv-to-begin-4k-broadcasts-this-year/


----------



## slice1900

TheRatPatrol said:


> http://www.satellitetoday.com/regional/2014/09/22/directv-to-begin-4k-broadcasts-this-year/


Misleading headline. They're starting 4K VOD this year, not delivering 4K via satellite yet.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> That makes me wonder - when the Spaceways need to be retired, I wonder if Directv would have any interest in launching another processing satellite that can aim spot beams?


I think this depends on how the spot beam coverage requirements go (in terms of DMA's changing physical shape) and how well the newer fixed-size spot beams can be redirected to cover as necessary. Ka produces some rather narrow beams that have already demonstrated their fall-of at the edges in a couple of markets (Las Vegas and somewhere in the Carolinas IIRC).


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> That's true, I didn't think about that aspect of the Spaceways. I guess providing the frequencies and spot patterns work out they could have about 100 Ka hi spot beams in total from 99W between D14 and SW2. Then they'd have the option of switching off SW1 if they wanted to expand CONUS Ka hi coverage to all 24 tpns from 103 once D15 is in service. Even more bandwidth than what I think is already more than they know what to do with
> 
> That makes me wonder - when the Spaceways need to be retired, I wonder if Directv would have any interest in launching another processing satellite that can aim spot beams? Having that ability would be really nice if one of your satellites had a spot beam go bad, or an entire spot beam capable satellite failed, as you'd be able to cover for it easily. The Spaceways look to have fuel left beyond 2020, so if they are otherwise healthy they wouldn't need to be in a big hurry, but if they were doing this they'd probably have to ask for bids in the next few years given build and launch timelines.


I think the space ways won't be replaced by like satelites. I would Imagine if they covert just a few specific markets to mpeg4 only and get rid of dual sd and Hi Definition locals in some they won't need any of the space way satelites.

When you stop and think about it directv will have a ton more spot beam capacity too after the switchover. So maybe we get some sub channels and such. Or maybe they go with a few more conus channels. Or maybe they go with more Targeted on demand pushed programing or even requested. Lots of possibilities.


----------



## slice1900

But the problem is, AFAIK they can't re-aim the spot beams on normal satellites. If the spot beam antenna aimed at Minneapolis has a technical issue, what do they do? Tell subscribers there "don't worry, we're starting construction on a new satellite next year, so we expect to have you taken care of in 4 to 5 years!"

It isn't a matter of capacity, it is a matter of flexibility. When D14 and D15 are in the air, they'll be able to tolerate the outage of any one CONUS satellite for HD or 4K far better than they'll be able to tolerate the loss of a satellite that is serving dozens of spot beams, or even the loss of a single spot beam.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> But the problem is, AFAIK they can't re-aim the spot beams on normal satellites. If the spot beam antenna aimed at Minneapolis has a technical issue, what do they do? Tell subscribers there "don't worry, we're starting construction on a new satellite next year, so we expect to have you taken care of in 4 to 5 years!"


There are redundant transponders available to cover a transponder failure. Multiple failures could lead to a problem, but DirecTV would find somewhere to put the channels. Even if they had to put them on a ConUS transponder.


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> But the problem is, AFAIK they can't re-aim the spot beams on normal satellites. If the spot beam antenna aimed at Minneapolis has a technical issue, what do they do? Tell subscribers there "don't worry, we're starting construction on a new satellite next year, so we expect to have you taken care of in 4 to 5 years!"
> 
> It isn't a matter of capacity, it is a matter of flexibility. When D14 and D15 are in the air, they'll be able to tolerate the outage of any one CONUS satellite for HD or 4K far better than they'll be able to tolerate the loss of a satellite that is serving dozens of spot beams, or even the loss of a single spot beam.


Pretty sure they have enough redundancy built in and such that they could lose any one sat and still not have any issues...


----------



## slice1900

So how does the redundancy work for spot beams? Can the spot beams of a traditional satellite like D10, D12 and D14 be re-directed after launch? I thought this was only possible on the Spaceway sats, but maybe that capability exists on all satellites.

In order to have redundancy, you either have to be able to re-direct spot beams, or you have a spare spot beam that can be enabled for any DMA.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Pretty sure they have enough redundancy built in and such that they could lose any one sat and still not have any issues...


I bet that if DIRECTV 7S failed there would be more than a little panic.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> So how does the redundancy work for spot beams? Can the spot beams of a traditional satellite like D10, D12 and D14 be re-directed after launch? I thought this was only possible on the Spaceway sats, but maybe that capability exists on all satellites.No the D birds' spots are not steerable.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the D birds' spots are not steerable.
Click to expand...




> slice1900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order to have redundancy, you either have to be able to re-direct spot beams, or you have a spare spot beam that can be enabled for any DMA.
Click to expand...

Unless there is another spotbeam satellite available that can cover the area of a lost spot due to a failure in the antenna feed system or some other, the locals would just have to go on a ConUS beam somewhere.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> I bet that if DIRECTV 7S failed there would be more than a little panic.


Wouldn't any sudden and unexpected catastrophic loss of an entire satellite like that be a problem for almost any provider?

Yes, either D9S or the old greaser D4S would have to urgently move over there for a time and operate in the 119 configuration to cover for the loss at least until D14 and 15 are up and DIRECTV can accelerate the migration of 119 channels to the 99/101/103 core group.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Wouldn't any sudden and unexpected catastrophic loss of an entire satellite like that be a problem for almost any provider?
> 
> Yes, either D9S or the old greaser D4S would have to urgently move over there for a time and operate in the 119 configuration to cover for the loss at least until D14 and 15 are up and DIRECTV can accelerate the migration of 119 channels to the 99/101/103 core group.


Yeah I agree, today neither Direct or Dish could survive the loss of a whole satellite without issues. Some are less of a problem than others, but Directv will care much more about making sure 99/103 are covered since that's the future, and D7S is the past. They care if it fails today, but care a bit less tomorrow and two years from now hardly care at all - it'd just push up the timetable for shutting off MPEG2 for Spanish customers and those in the areas covered by 119 spotbeams.

What matters is that after D14 and D15 launch, they are 100% covered from a CONUS HD perspective. It would be harder for Dish to get to that point since they have such a poorly planned split system.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> So how does the redundancy work for spot beams?


Spare transponders on the same frequency and downlink beams as the ones that are in use.
If a transponder fails turn on the other one (if they chose to equip the satellite in this manner).


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> Wouldn't any sudden and unexpected catastrophic loss of an entire satellite like that be a problem for almost any provider?


Of course. I was addressing inkahauts' theory that DIRECTV has everything covered.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Of course. I was addressing inkahauts' theory that DIRECTV has everything covered.


It's not a theory....except perhaps to those who rely exclusively on what they read on the public Internet as their sole source of facts.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Of course. I was addressing inkahauts' theory that DIRECTV has everything covered.


I'm sure what inky means is that DIRECTV has everything covered with such contingency planing, but *within reason* of what is likely to occur.

Obviously no satellite provider can withstand a sudden bolt-out-of-the-blue loss of multiple satellites at one time. Of course not. But even a sudden surprise loss of one satellite like D7S will definitely be of some serious concern for DIRECTV and would lead to temporary service outages of (primarily) Spanish SD channels and some English LiL markets' SD channels until another bird can move over there to replace it.

Likely D9S or D4S maneuvered over from 101, or if in service, D15 using its Ku band payload moved over from 103.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Likely D9S or D4S maneuvered over from 101, or if in service, D15 using its Ku band payload moved over from 103.


No way they'd use D15 for 119. It has no spot beams, so all it would do is replace those Spanish channels. Not to mention being a tremendous waste of resources considering everything else it can do.

They'd use D4S or perhaps D5 (which used to be at 119) for that.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It's not a theory....except perhaps to those who rely exclusively on what they read on the public Internet as their sole source of facts.


It is theory that has no legs and you don't have to be a DIRECTV subscriber to understand why.

If, in an extremely unlikely set of circumstances, DIRECTV 7S failed today, it would be a major hardship for large classes of DIRECTV customers.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> They'd use D4S or perhaps D5 (which used to be at 119) for that.


Going to DIRECTV 5 CONUS would cover some bases and would only impact those with the Phase II dish. Moving DIRECTV 5 might have a serious impact on its current duties as a beam for Puerto Rico but leaving it at 110W doesn't allow nearly enough CONUS bandwdith.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> It is theory that has no legs and you don't have to be a DIRECTV subscriber to understand why.
> 
> If, in an extremely unlikely set of circumstances, DIRECTV 7S failed today, it would be a major hardship for large classes of DIRECTV customers.


Not sure where some of these people get this nonsense...but Dish subscribers on the Internet reading all sorts of non-facts doesn't make anything a fact.

No legs? - show your facts. So far...only seeing opinion.


----------



## Sixto

HoTat2 said:


> I'm sure what inky means is that DIRECTV has everything covered with such contingency planing, but *within reason* of what is likely to occur.
> 
> Obviously no satellite provider can withstand a sudden bolt-out-of-the-blue loss of multiple satellites at one time. Of course not. But even a sudden surprise loss of one satellite like D7S will definitely be of some serious concern for DIRECTV and would lead to temporary service outages of (primarily) Spanish SD channels and some English LiL markets' SD channels until another bird can move over there to replace it.
> 
> Likely D9S or D4S maneuvered over from 101, or if in service, D15 using its Ku band payload moved over from 103.


Exactly. Certainly depends on which satellite, but it most likely would cause a serious disruption, followed by reconfiguration, and maybe some lost content for a while. After D14 and D15 the situation will be greatly improved for some areas.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> No legs? - show your facts. So far...only seeing opinion.


I cited the example of a total failure of DIRECTV 7S that serves up many local markets in SD on its 23 active Ku spot beams as well as CONUS Latino programming in both HD and SD. Raiding DIRECTV 4S and/or DIRECTV 9S that together are currently serving up some of the larger DMAs with their spot beams doesn't seem like a solution.

What's your backup theory in that unlikely event?


----------



## slice1900

AFAIK, there is a lot of redundancy and a lot of diagnostics built into a satellite, so such a failure with no warning at all would be extremely unlikely. While I'm sure Directv has some sort of contingency plan for every one of their satellites for such an unlikely event, like a direct strike from a passing meteor, it isn't something they would make public.

This small chance for total failure of D7S you've become obsessed with becomes a smaller potential problem as each MPEG2 customer leaves Directv or upgrades to HD. Maybe you should concern yourself with worrying about how Dish would deal with a similar failure. The fact the new SWM 13 LNB is available only in a 3 LNB form factor strongly suggests 110/119 has no future with Directv on the customer side, so while it would have some impact today they'll care less and less with every day that passes.

I'm sure those who follow this thread specifically for D14 related information would prefer this discussion not take place here, so if you intend to keep pursuing it maybe you should start a new thread for that purpose. I don't intend to address it any further here.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> I cited the example of a total failure of DIRECTV 7S that serves up many local markets in SD on its 23 active Ku spot beams as well as CONUS Latino programming in both HD and SD. Raiding DIRECTV 4S and/or DIRECTV 9S that together are currently serving up some of the larger DMAs with their spot beams doesn't seem like a solution.
> 
> What's your backup theory in that unlikely event?


While that is a hypothetical....there are contingency plans as Slice points out.

Just because you can't Google a technology plan doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

I also agree that the change in the content of this thread has come through a derailment by select posters. It's not the first time either.

So let's all get back on topic. :backtotop


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> I cited the example of a total failure of DIRECTV 7S that serves up many local markets in SD on its 23 active Ku spot beams as well as CONUS Latino programming in both HD and SD. Raiding DIRECTV 4S and/or DIRECTV 9S that together are currently serving up some of the larger DMAs with their spot beams doesn't seem like a solution.
> 
> What's your backup theory in that unlikely event?


And besides;

D7S actually has 29 active spotbeams on 119

And since the max. of 26 spots for D9S and D4S at 101 each approximately overlap a corresponding one on the other, either spotbeam payload can be pumped up to assume the full load if necessary freeing the other for an emergency at 119.

But as has been rightly said already .... :backtotop


----------



## inkahauts

Not to mention the space ways and all their reconfiguration they can do. 

Back to topic....

I wonder how long they will test d14 this time since it seems to have a fairly large number of abilities compared to most their satelites. It may take a bit longer than past ones since it has so many options.


----------



## HarleyD

Do we know if the request for the milestone extension was granted? If not, I believe the milestone deadline was in February as I recall. Could that possibly hasten IOT?


----------



## slice1900

HarleyD said:


> Do we know if the request for the milestone extension was granted? If not, I believe the milestone deadline was in February as I recall. Could that possibly hasten IOT?


I doubt the milestone extension matters for this. They should easily be able to get another small extension if necessary as they'd be able to show they're making progress and are very close.


----------



## HoTat2

HarleyD said:


> Do we know if the request for the milestone extension was granted? If not, I believe the milestone deadline was in February as I recall. Could that possibly hasten IOT?


I check the FCC's IBFS website about every day (except weekends when there's no activity).

And unless I missed something there's nothing official posted yet on the Milestone Extension/Waiver requests.


----------



## LameLefty

It would be nice to have some factual D14-related news and discussion in this thread rather than the usual baying of the hound. Er, "hounds." Yeah, that's what I meant to type.


----------



## veryoldschool

LameLefty said:


> It would be nice to have some factual D14-related news and discussion in this thread rather than the usual baying of the hound. Er, "hounds." Yeah, that's what I meant to type.


Come on, what you're really trying to say is "Basset barf" isn't it?


----------



## James Long

It is simple. Talk about the satellite ... not about each other. If someone is talking about a side topic you do not want to discuss do not respond - just talk about the topic.
_-- Moderator_

(If you have any questions or complaints please follow the forum rules and PM a moderator, any moderator.)


----------



## harsh

Update: On advice from Jester, Salo updated his schedule and now places the DIRECTV 14 launch on December 4th.

DLA-1 remains at October 16th between 21:00 and 21:50 UTC.


----------



## inkahauts

Looks like the Latin sat is moving along on schedule so that's good news for keeping things on schedule for d14!


----------



## RAD

From http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=44165



> Preparations for Arianespace's sixth Ariane 5 mission in 2014 are gearing up with two separate milestones marked this week in French Guiana: arrival of one of the flight's two satellite passengers - DIRECTV-14 - and the assembly start-up for its heavy-lift launcher.
> 
> The DIRECTV-14 spacecraft - which was built by SSL (Space Systems/Loral) for operator DIRECTV - was transported by a chartered An-124 cargo jetliner that landed at Félix Eboué International Airport near the capital city of Cayenne, then unloaded for its transfer by road to the Spaceport.


That's good news


----------



## longrider

That is very good news as transfer to the spaceport means launch is scheduled and should be "soon". I did find it interesting that they chartered a Russian jet for the transport. Had it been going to Baikonur I suppose I could understand it but to French Guiana?? For the record the AN-124 is nothing special, it is very comparable to a Boeing 747 freighter.


----------



## HoTat2

longrider said:


> .... I did find it interesting that they chartered a Russian jet for the transport. Had it been going to Baikonur I suppose I could understand it but to French Guiana?? For the record the AN-124 is nothing special, it is very comparable to a Boeing 747 freighter.


The An-124 used here may be Russian built, but might it be the same plane that's actually owned by the Ukraine which recently delivered the previous IS30/DLA-1 from SS/L to this same location a few weeks ago?

http://www.intelsat.com/blog/intelsat-launches-blog/intelsat-30-dla-1-the-journey-begins/


----------



## HoTat2

Photo of D14's arrival and unloading on Arianespace's web site.

http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2014/1222.asp


----------



## longrider

HoTat2 said:


> The An-124 used here may be Russian built, but might it be the same plane that's actually owned by the Ukraine which recently delivered the previous IS30/DLA-1 from SS/L to this same location a few weeks ago?
> 
> http://www.intelsat.com/blog/intelsat-launches-blog/intelsat-30-dla-1-the-journey-begins/


Good point about the operator being Ukrainian plus looking at he link you posted for DLA-1 it almost looks like SS/L designed the shipping container for that aircraft. There might not be a choice.


----------



## woj027

HoTat2 said:


> The An-124 used here may be Russian built, but might it be the same plane that's actually owned by the Ukraine which recently delivered the previous IS30/DLA-1 from SS/L to this same location a few weeks ago?
> 
> http://www.intelsat.com/blog/intelsat-launches-blog/intelsat-30-dla-1-the-journey-begins/


looking here, it looks like it (IS30/DLA-1) showed up on Sept 15. Plus more links about DLA-1 getting prepped.

http://www.intelsat.com/category/blog/intelsat-launches-blog/


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Nice photo.

Looks like D14 is really getting ready to bring more capacity *soon*.


----------



## HarleyD

The container appears to be air conditioned.

I find that a little funny for cargo destined to go into the harsh temperature extremes of outer space.


----------



## harsh

longrider said:
 

> That is very good news as transfer to the spaceport means launch is scheduled and should be "soon".


An approximate date has been known for some time. All that remains is a time.


> I did find it interesting that they chartered a Russian jet for the transport. Had it been going to Baikonur I suppose I could understand it but to French Guiana?? For the record the AN-124 is nothing special, it is very comparable to a Boeing 747 freighter.


With any large cargo affair the overriding issue is often what it takes to get the load on and off the carrier.

In this instance it appears that all they need is a conventional boom crane and that's imperative if you don't have access to a specialized cargo loader such as is used with many 747 freighters. Being able to kneel may be an important advantage to the Antonov.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Looks like D14 is really getting ready to bring more capacity *soon*.


The launch is scheduled to be coming in a little less that 50 days. Additional capacity seems likely to be quite a few months or more away.


----------



## harsh

HarleyD said:


> I find that a little funny for cargo destined to go into the harsh temperature extremes of outer space.


Ambient temperature in space is always unimaginably cold.


----------



## slice1900

HarleyD said:


> The container appears to be air conditioned.
> 
> I find that a little funny for cargo destined to go into the harsh temperature extremes of outer space.


It may be more about maintaining low humidity. They may need to design it for temperature extremes, but won't design it to handle humidity. A little moisture that condenses in the wrong spot would expand and become ice after launch....not good!


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Ambient temperature in space is always unimaginably cold.


There's this thing out there called the sun, which radiates a lot of heat, and will warm a satellite quite well. It will have to endure some pretty significant temperature extremes as it moves in and out of Earth's shadow.

When designing spacecraft to go to Mars carrying humans, one of the problems will be how to dispose of unwanted heat. Heat from the sun, as well as heat from the people inside, computers, etc. A vacuum is the best insulator there is, after all.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> The launch is scheduled to be coming in a little less that 50 days. Additional capacity seems likely to be quite a few months or more away.


DUH.

*Soon* is a variable term depending on the context.

In the evolution of 4K Ultra HD....measuring in months is "soon".


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> *Soon* is a variable term depending on the context.


As such the term doesn't have any place in this discussion as full operation is outside of the context.


----------



## dennisj00

harsh said:


> Ambient temperature in space is always unimaginably cold.


Ask the residents of Skylab that saved their butts by putting up an awning. They weren't freezing.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> As such the term doesn't have any place in this discussion as full operation is outside of the context.


How predictable from a non-DirecTV subscriber. Sour grapes. In contrast Dish's support for 4K is ages away.

D-14 will yet again leapfrog the competition in terms of capacity and capabilities. WOO HOO.


----------



## damondlt

hdtvfan0001 said:


> How predictable from a non-DirecTV subscriber. Sour grapes. In contrast Dish's support for 4K is ages away.
> 
> D-14 will yet again leapfrog the competition in terms of capacity and capabilities. WOO HOO.


More like catch up.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

damondlt said:


> More like catch up.


That has to be one of the funniest posts in years. :rotfl: !rolling :rolling:

Thanks.

In the mean time....bring it on D14.


----------



## HarleyD

harsh said:


> Ambient temperature in space is always unimaginably cold.


Direct sunlight without atmospheric mitigation can lead to extreme heating.

Remember Skylab? When part of its' shielding was lost during launch they literally deployed an umbrella to keep the direct sunlight off the vehicle in order to keep the temperatures habitable.


----------



## HarleyD

slice1900 said:


> It may be more about maintaining low humidity. They may need to design it for temperature extremes, but won't design it to handle humidity. A little moisture that condenses in the wrong spot would expand and become ice after launch....not good!


Hadn't considered humidity.

That's a pretty valid point.

I suppose silica gel bags the size of cement sacks labeled "Do Not Eat" wouldn't work as well either. :righton:


----------



## Alan Gordon

After reading the headline on the front page, I'm pleased to know that D14 is being launched on December 15, 2014 and not December 2015.


----------



## HoTat2

Alan Gordon said:


> After reading the headline on the front page, I'm pleased to know that D14 is being launched on December 15, 2014 and not December 2015.


Where did the Dec. 15 date come from?

I can't find the info. anywhere.

I see Athlon646464 posted the news headline, but he didn't post a link to the source. Only to the discussion thread here.


----------



## longrider

HoTat2 said:


> Where did the Dec. 15 date come from?
> 
> I can't find the info. anywhere.
> 
> I see Athlon646464 posted the news headline, but he didn't post a link to the source. Only to the discussion thread here.


This was posted on Sept. 20



HoTat2 said:


> OK, so then based on this latest news about GSAT-16, can we say there's a firm launch date of Dec. 6 for D14/RB-1 (primary payload) and the companion GSAT-16 (secondary payload)?


However I cant find anything referencing Dec 15th


----------



## HoTat2

longrider said:


> This was posted on Sept. 20
> 
> However I cant find anything referencing Dec 15th


Yeah I remember that;

And then Salo over at nasaspaceflight.com later updated it to the 4th, and that's what he's still showing.

But now today Athlon posts this 12/15 date without any source link. So I'm trying to figure this out now....


----------



## longrider

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah I remember that;
> 
> And then Salo over at nasaspaceflight.com later updated it to the 4th, and that's what he's still showing.
> 
> But now today Athlon posts this 12/15 date without any source link. So I'm trying to figure this out now....


Sorry about that, I didn't realize until your reply that you had made both posts


----------



## cmoss5

Looks as though ATT is getting in on the ground floor of how satellites go up,etc since they will own Directv in a few months.


----------



## RAD

cmoss5 said:


> Looks as though ATT is getting in on the ground floor of how satellites go up,etc since they will own Directv in a few months.


AT&T was in the satellite game long before DIRECTV was even a twinkle in someones eye, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstar


----------



## HoTat2

Mission update;

The Ariane 5 launcher for VA221 construction is moving along with the placement of the "upper composite" (i.e. the upper cryogenic stage and equipment bay) atop the core lower cryogenic first stage and two solid rocket booster assembly.

D14 is beginning its pre-launch processing.

http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2014/1223.asp


----------



## studechip

HoTat2 said:


> Mission update;
> 
> The Ariane 5 launcher for VA221 construction is moving along with the placement of the "upper composite" (i.e. the upper cryogenic stage and equipment bay) atop the core lower cryogenic first stage and two solid rocket booster assembly.
> 
> D14 is beginning its pre-launch processing.
> 
> http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2014/1223.asp


Bad link.


----------



## longrider

Fixed link, somehow the forum software inserted a few extra characters after the .asp:

http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2014/1223.asp


----------



## HoTat2

studechip said:


> Bad link.





longrider said:


> Fixed link, somehow the forum software inserted a few extra characters after the .asp:
> 
> http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2014/1223.asp


Thanks ...

Didn't know what happened since I know I originally copied and pasted the link correctly.


----------



## Athlon646464

HoTat2 said:


> Where did the Dec. 15 date come from?
> 
> I can't find the info. anywhere.
> 
> I see Athlon646464 posted the news headline, but he didn't post a link to the source. Only to the discussion thread here.


My mistake gentlemen - a typo. I'll fix the headline on the home page. Meant to say '12-04-15' and I left out the '04'.

Sorry - sorry sorry........

:blackeye:


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> How predictable from a non-DirecTV subscriber. Sour grapes. In contrast Dish's support for 4K is ages away.
> 
> D-14 will yet again leapfrog the competition in terms of capacity and capabilities. WOO HOO.


Capacity and capability hasn't elevated the 3D situation so what do you expect that it will do for 4K that it couldn't do for 3D?


----------



## Athlon646464

Athlon646464 said:


> My mistake gentlemen - a typo. I'll fix the headline on the home page. Meant to say '12-04-15' and I left out the '04'.
> 
> Sorry - sorry sorry........
> 
> :blackeye:


Damn - busy w/work - blew it again!!! I've fixed it to say '12-04-14'.

Wow.....

:blackeye: :blackeye:


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Capacity and capability hasn't elevated the 3D situation so what do you expect that it will do for 4K that it couldn't do for 3D?


Take the 4K debate to that thread, we don't need to rehash it here.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Take the 4K debate to that thread, we don't need to rehash it here.


Yes please ,,,

Especially since D14 is going through its pre-launch processing stages now ...


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> Ambient temperature in space is always unimaginably cold.


Space is a vacuum. As such, it has no "ambient temperature."

Stick to what you actually KNOW and stop trying to sound like an engineer.


----------



## Alan Gordon

LameLefty said:


> Space is a vacuum. As such, it has no "ambient temperature."


Khan lied? You're telling me space isn't the perfect place for revenge? My faith in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" has been shaken...


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> Capacity and capability hasn't elevated the 3D situation so what do you expect that it will do for 4K that it couldn't do for 3D?


Two entirely different things. That's like being surprised that Pandora is common in cars now but record players aren't.


----------



## HoTat2

Alan Gordon said:


> Khan lied? You're telling me space isn't the perfect place for revenge? My faith in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" has been shaken...


No need to have your faith shaken in the Klingon slogan;

In context I'm sure Khan was referring to interstellar space far from any star to provide substantial heat ...


----------



## Athlon646464

Photo from a news article about D14 published here on 10-15-14:


----------



## HoTat2

DIRECTV files to move SW2 and D-11 over .04° east and tighten the E-W tolerance of both to ±.025° in preparation for D14. Also states they estimate after orbit raising and testing, D14 to arrive at its operational slot (99.235° W) by early Feb. '15.

View attachment 25573


View attachment 25574


----------



## P Smith

Such long IOT period tell me, they are doing a lot of experiments as routine checks would take a few weeks, not months.


----------



## inkahauts

That's only about six to eight weeks once it gets to testing spot.


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> Such long IOT period tell me, they are doing a lot of experiments as routine checks would take a few weeks, not months.


DIRECTV has been no stranger to taking months to turn up a new bird. Even with a true equatorial launch (Sea Launch) of DIRECTV 11, it took fully four months to put it into service.


----------



## fleckrj

It usually takes 60 days, but the launch team usually allocate 90 days on the schedule, just to test all of the thrusters and gyroscopes that maintain the attitude and positioning of the satellite and to maneuver the satellite into its box. Even with an equatorial or near equatorial launch, the initial orbit is going to be elliptical. It takes time to round out the orbit. All of this testing and maneuvering needs to be done before the satellite is turned over to DirecTV for testing of the electronics.

Wasn't D12 tested in one location and then moved to its operational location? Those moves take some time, too. Four months from launch to operation is pretty quick.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

fleckrj said:


> It usually takes 60 days, but the launch team usually allocate 90 days on the schedule, just to test all of the thrusters and gyroscopes that maintain the attitude and positioning of the satellite and to maneuver the satellite into its box. Even with an equatorial or near equatorial launch, the initial orbit is going to be elliptical. It takes time to round out the orbit. All of this testing and maneuvering needs to be done before the satellite is turned over to DirecTV for testing of the electronics.
> 
> Wasn't D12 tested in one location and then moved to its operational location? Those moves take some time, too. Four months from launch to operation is pretty quick.


Good points and information.

There is practically no margin for error, as Dish learned the hard way with their launch debacle a few years back. You have to get things right, and a proven process is just that...proven.


----------



## harsh

fleckrj said:


> Wasn't D12 tested in one location and then moved to its operational location? Those moves take some time, too.


All the recent DIRECTV satellites (and those of other providers) are tested at a different slot than they will ultimately serve in. ARSAT 1 is testing near 80W but is expected to end up at 72W.

DIRECTV had to file an FCC extension for DIRECTV 12 to complete testing at 76W. The drift to 103W took a little less than two weeks.


----------



## HoTat2

Mission Update:

DIRECTV-14 located inside GSC's "S5" Payload Preparation facility having passed it's "fit check" (whatever that specifically entails) process has now completed it's propellant loading and is fully fueled;

Progress continues ...



> DIRECTV-14 is fueled for Arianespace's next Ariane 5 launch
> 
> *October 31, 2014 - Ariane Flight VA221*
> 
> 
> DIRECTV-14 receives its propellant load inside the S5A fueling and integration hall of the Spaceport's S5 payload preparation facility.
> 
> The DIRECTV-14 satellite has been fueled at the Spaceport as preparations continue for its launch on Arianespace's upcoming Ariane 5 mission - which is scheduled for liftoff in early December, with India's GSAT-16 as the co-passenger.
> Built by SSL (Space Systems/Loral) for operator DIRECTV, the high-capacity spacecraft received its propellant load in the S5A fueling and integration hall - with this activity coming after DIRECTV-14's fit-check process performed earlier this month in the Spaceport's S5C clean room facility.
> Based on the SSL 1300 platform, DIRECTV-14 is a 20-kilowatt class Ka-band and reverse-band digital broadcast satellite that will be used to deliver Ultra HD and other new consumer services for DIRECTV. It was designed with a very advanced beam forming network to provide service across the U.S. and Puerto Rico.
> DIRECTV-14 will be joined on the flight by the Indian Space Research Organisation's (ISRO) GSAT-16 telecommunications satellite - which also is being readied for launch at the Spaceport, and is designed to provide telecommunications services that include VSAT transmissions, TV broadcasting and emergency communications.
> Ariane 5's early December mission with DIRECTV-14 and GSAT-16 is designated VA221 in Arianespace's numbering system for its family of launchers.
> http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2014/1232.asp


----------



## harsh

Last Wednesday DIRECTV filed a modification of an SES license to accommodate using signals higher in magnitude than allowed for DIRECTV 9S and DIRECTV 14.

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SESMOD2014090200689&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> Last Wednesday DIRECTV filed a modification of an SES license to accommodate using signals higher in magnitude than allowed for DIRECTV 9S and DIRECTV 14.
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SESMOD2014090200689&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number


Well, that's not what your link takes me too.

When I go there its for permission to use a earth station to transmit to the new sat going up, was filed last august and has already been approved a few days ago...

Good to know though, thanks....


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Well, that's not what your link takes me too.


It took me to the appropriate location this morning.

The Listing was on October 29th but the filing date was September so it isn't something from Summer and there was quite a gap between when it was accepted and when it was added to the document system.

The action taken date is today.

SES-MOD-20140902-00689


----------



## HoTat2

GSAT-16, the lower weight companion satellite to be launched with DIRECTV-14, now undergoing its "fit check" process in clean room "S5C" of the payload processing facility. Also note in the article that this is the first mention (that I'm aware of anyhow) from Arianespace confirming a Dec. 4 launch date.

GSAT-16 is put through its paces for Arianespace's upcoming Ariane 5 flight



















The pre-launch checkout process for India's GSAT-16 is highlighted in the photos above. At left, this telecommunications satellite is shown during the initial fit-check validation with the adapter that will serve as its interface with Ariane 5; which was followed by the opening of GSAT-16's solar panels inside the Spaceport's S5C clean room facility.

November 7, 2014 - Ariane Flight VA221

The Indian GSAT-16 telecommunications satellite for Arianespace's next heavy-lift Ariane 5 mission is undergoing a detailed checkout at the Spaceport in French Guiana ahead of its scheduled liftoff on December 4.

GSAT-16 was designed, assembled and integrated by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), and validations performed in the Spaceport's S5 payload preparation facility include its initial fit-check with launch vehicle hardware, as well as solar panel deployment.

The latter step involved the extension of GSAT-16's multi-segment solar panels, validating the proper operation before they are definitively stowed against the satellite in the final liftoff configuration. This particular test uses an overhead latticework that helps support the solar panel's weight - simulating zero gravity conditions of space as the panel opens to its full length.

GSAT-16 will weigh approximately 3,150 kg. at liftoff, and is to deliver C- and Ku-band telecommunications services that include very small aperture terminal (VSAT) transmissions, TV broadcasting and emergency communications.

For the upcoming launch, GSAT-16 will be joined by its co-passenger: DIRECTV-14, which was built by SSL (Space Systems/Loral) for operator DIRECTV.

The December 4 flight with Ariane 5 is designated VA221 in Arianespace's numbering system for its family of launchers, which also includes the medium-lift Soyuz and light-lift Vega.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48

This December 4th date is for 2015, correct?


----------



## HoTat2

peds48 said:


> This December 4th date is for 2015, correct?


No, 2014...

You don't think D14, which is fully fueled now and GSAT-16 can remain at the GSC for over a year before launch did you? 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> No, 2014...
> 
> You don't think D14, which is fully fueled now and GSAT-16 can remain at the GSC for over a year before launch did you?
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


perhaps he imagined, D14 will fly around Kuru at low altitude whole year,testing RDBS equipment


----------



## harsh

With less than 30 days to go, they still haven't offered a time window. VA220's time window was established at around 55 days before the launch.

While weather undoubtedly plays a big part, cooperation in coordinating downrange activity is probably at least as big an issue.


----------



## inkahauts

Yes the sky is falling we know. 

Just because you don't know a time frame doesn't mean it isn't known by the people who need to know.


----------



## slice1900

Geez, are we going to have to listen to certain posters barking a bunch of made up negative crap every damn other day for the next six months while he hopes and prays for something to go wrong?


----------



## longrider

I have a question for the rocket scientists  Since French Guiana is only a few hundred miles off the equator it will obviously be much faster and easier to set the final orbit vs launching from Baikonur. What I wonder is Sea Launch's ability to be right on the equator any significant advantage to being a few hundred miles off?


----------



## inkahauts

Interesting question. I'd ask more at how many miles away from the equator does it start to make a real difference?


----------



## P Smith

Perhaps a couple additional burns require, so add a few kilograms of fuel and hours


----------



## HarleyD

I seem to recall that DirecTV 11 reached GSO a little more quickly.

I don't think it was an earth shattering difference though.

Besides, isn't tracking the TLE deltas from day to day fun?

Or is that something that is endemic to IT people? Watching progress bars/counters for a living can do that to you.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Geez, are we going to have to listen to certain posters barking a bunch of made up negative crap every damn other day for the next six months while he hopes and prays for something to go wrong?


Nothing made up -- just a comparison between the last launch with a nearly identical configuration and this one.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Nothing made up -- just a comparison between the last launch with a nearly identical configuration and this one.


Also, make sure where the info. on the launch window for the previous launch specifically came from last time. Did it come first from Arianespace?

I remember seeing it mentioned in AS' launch kit, but that wasn't available until a few days before launch day.

Remember for IS30 we had launch info. releases coming from both Arianespace and Intelsat through their respective websites, Facebook, and twitter accounts. Now its just pretty much AS for stuff related to D14 and VA221 as a whole.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

Mission update;

Ariane-5 launcher for VA221 moved from integration building (BIL) to final assembly one (BAF) where it is officially now under Arianespace's authority for mating with its two satellite payloads.

Launch still set for Dec. 4th. as preparation continues ...

Stay tuned ... 

Ariane 5 rolls out to the Spaceport's Final Assembly Building in preparation for its December 4 mission








The Ariane 5 for Arianespace Flight VA221 is shown during transfer, moving on its mobile launch table (photo at left) from the Spaceport's Launcher Integration Building to the Final Assembly Building (photo at right).

*November 14, 2014 - Ariane Flight VA221*
Arianespace's sixth Ariane 5 for launch in 2014 is now ready to receive its two satellite passengers after this workhorse vehicle was moved to the Spaceport's Final Assembly Building in French Guiana.
The Ariane 5 rolled out yesterday from the Launcher Integration Building - where its core cryogenic stage, two solid boosters and cryogenic upper stage were mated by industrial architect Airbus Defence and Space - to the Final Assembly Building for delivery to Arianespace.
Now under Arianespace's responsibility, the launcher is set for integration of its payloads - the Indian Space Research Organisation's (ISRO) GSAT-16 and DIRECTV-14, which was built by SSL (Space Systems/Loral) for operator DIRECTV. This activity will be followed by the final verifications and subsequent transfer to the ELA-3 launch zone, in advance of the scheduled December 4 liftoff.
This upcoming heavy-lift flight is designated VA221 in Arianespace's numbering system, signifying the 221st flight of an Ariane family vehicle since 1979. 
http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2014/1236.asp


----------



## harsh

Salo updated his schedule today to put the launch at 20:38 on December 4th. No window was offered.


----------



## joed32

harsh said:


> Salo updated his schedule today to put the launch at 20:38 on December 4th. No window was offered.


20:38 in which time zone?


----------



## HoTat2

joed32 said:


> 20:38 in which time zone?


Since it came from nasaspaceflight.com, I would suspect its GMT;

Therefore, that would make launchtime at 5:28 PM local Guiana time, 3:28 PM EST.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

joed32 said:


> 20:38 in which time zone?


UTC (Zulu time)

The primary purpose of announcing a time in advance is so that everyone else clears out of the downrange. UTC carries no Daylight Saving/Summer Time or Midday/Midnight confusion.

GMT is NOT synonymous with UTC and should not be offered as such.

http://www.timeanddate.com/time/aboututc.html


----------



## carl6

Except of course that the very article you reference states:

"UTC is commonly referred to as Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) when not counting the precise accuracy regarding fractions of a second."

For common discussion, and in the absence of precision time measurement, UTC and GMT are synonymous. That does still recognize there are differences when precision accuracy is required (and there are in fact many such cases). To state that the time a launch is scheduled for general discussion and awareness is in either UTC or GMT is more than sufficiently accurate, and in that context the terms are synonymous. To measure a precise location using GPS, the terms are most certainly not synonymous. It all depends on the context in which the terms are used.


----------



## Diana C

Yes, in common usage, such as in this discussion, the only difference between GMT and UTC is that when the UK is not on British Summer Time (BST) they are said to be on GMT. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that the UK is on UTC in the fall and winter.


----------



## joed32

HoTat2 said:


> Since it came from nasaspaceflight.com, I would suspect its GMT;
> 
> Therefore, that would make launchtime at 5:28 PM local Guiana time, 3:28 PM EST.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Thanks!


----------



## harsh

carl6 said:


> For common discussion, and in the absence of precision time measurement, UTC and GMT are synonymous.


As long as nobody confuses probably close enough with being one-and-the-same.

The time standard they're using is UTC and there's no need to reference any other standard.


----------



## P Smith

Shall we get back to D-14 finally ?


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> As long as nobody confuses probably close enough with being one-and-the-same.
> 
> The time standard they're using is UTC and there's no need to reference any other standard.


Exactly;

Which is obviously why I never meant to imply by my reference to "GMT" a precision measurement down to a resolution of even adding in leap seconds to a year end that atomic clocks can do. No of course not, but for the typical clocks which average time that most of us use on a daily basis is all.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy

I dunno: Every nanosecond feels like a light-foot to me!


----------



## carl6

Laxguy said:


> I dunno: Every nanosecond feels like a light-foot to me!


 !rolling


----------



## HoTat2

Directv (as expected at this point I guess) files a request for a 30 day STA for IOT at 76W for D14/RB-1.

Timeline given for a launch on 12/4 is to reach 76W after orbit raising no earlier than 12/14. Then following about four weeks of IOT, a 23 day drift to it's operational slot at 99W arriving Feb. 5 next year.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

nice find.


----------



## Oli74

are we able to watch the D-14 go up on December 4th?


----------



## HoTat2

Oli74 said:


> are we able to watch the D-14 go up on December 4th?


They many times will open up a special channel for coverage of such an event.

If not then you can get it online at;

http://www.arianespace.tv


----------



## Sixto

Hopefully you guys are gearing up for who will check Space-Track all day every day after launch! for the TLE data. Just a few weeks away ...


----------



## Sixto

Here's how we handled D12: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/155388-sixtoreport-d12-satellite-info-in-post1-live/#entry2143168


----------



## slice1900

Now that we know the scheduled date when D14 is supposed to be in position, do we know from past experience how long before it starts broadcasting live channels? Will it happen right away since they will have already conducted tests at 76*, or are there further steps that will take place once it is at 99* before it is ready?


----------



## Sixto

slice1900 said:


> Now that we know the scheduled date when D14 is supposed to be in position, do we know from past experience how long before it starts broadcasting live channels? Will it happen right away since they will have already conducted tests at 76*, or are there further steps that will take place once it is at 99* before it is ready?



D10Launched: 7/7/2007
LIVE: 9/26/2007
About a week delay due to spot beam and authorization issues
Thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/85005-d10-satellite-tech-thread-hd-testing-schedule-press-releases-location
[*]D11
Launched: 3/19/2008
LIVE: 7/31/2008
About a 6-8 week delay due to BSS testing. D11 got to it's first test location 5/25/2008
Thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/115478-sixto-report-d11-status-in-operation-july-31-2008/#entry1465084
[*]D12
Launched: 12/28/2009
LIVE: 5/19/2010
Delayed due to D10 amelioration
Thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/155388-sixtoreport-d12-satellite-info-in-post1-live/#entry2143169


----------



## P Smith

2+ ... 3+ ...5+ months delay


----------



## fleckrj

The question, though, was what is the delay between reaching final orbit and going live - not time from launch to going live. We now have an estimate of time from launch until D14 reaches is final orbit, which is more than I remember seeing for D12 at this stage.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Sixto said:


> D10
> Launched: 7/7/2007
> LIVE: 9/26/2007
> About a week delay due to spot beam and authorization issues
> Thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/85005-d10-satellite-tech-thread-hd-testing-schedule-press-releases-location
> 
> [*]D11
> 
> Launched: 3/19/2008
> LIVE: 7/31/2008
> About a 6-8 week delay due to BSS testing. D11 got to it's first test location 5/25/2008
> Thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/115478-sixto-report-d11-status-in-operation-july-31-2008/#entry1465084
> 
> [*]D12
> 
> Launched: 12/28/2009
> LIVE: 5/19/2010
> Delayed due to D10 amelioration
> Thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/155388-sixtoreport-d12-satellite-info-in-post1-live/#entry2143169


Thanks for that straight comparison Sixto!

What's getting lost int he conversation is that the public knowledge and even published information about D-14 doesn't include the details as to WHAT is being tested in the timeframe between orbit and live activation in its final position.

DirecTV knows that of course...but it's not something one can Google. Since that is the case, the live broadcast (post-testing) activation date for D-14 in its permanent location is something for speculation only at this time....but based on Sixto's historical information...its fair to assume it will be measured in months.


----------



## cypherx

A minimum of 2 months I would imagine. I guess its important for them to do all the testing they need to so they get it right when it goes into service.


----------



## Sixto

Those links also include the movement each day for D10, D11, and D12. The table shows the location each day.

D14 is also launching from a different location, and as referenced, may have slightly different testing needs.


----------



## slice1900

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Thanks for that straight comparison Sixto!
> 
> What's getting lost int he conversation is that the public knowledge and even published information about D-14 doesn't include the details as to WHAT is being tested in the timeframe between orbit and live activation in its final position.
> 
> DirecTV knows that of course...but it's not something one can Google. Since that is the case, the live broadcast (post-testing) activation date for D-14 in its permanent location is something for speculation only at this time....but based on Sixto's historical information...its fair to assume it will be measured in months.


The FCC doc provided earlier gave a pretty good rundown of what is going to be tested at 76*. They'll make sure all transponders work, their antenna patterns are correct, and so on. I don't think they're keeping anything secret, it just a long checklist of stuff they have to verify before moving it into final position.

And I'm still curious, how long it has taken in the past from the time a satellite reaches final position to the time it begins full operations. The links Sixto posted are great and I'm sure the information is in there if I read through those threads, but I'm hoping someone might have that information off the top of their heads so I don't have to go digging for it


----------



## HoTat2

Directv files 30 day STA request to use their Castle Rock earth station E070027 (9.2m dish known as "CKA-15") for Ka and RDBS band testing.





Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## hdtvfan0001

HoTat2 said:


> Directv files 30 day STA request to use their Castle Rock earth station E070027 (9.2m dish known as "CKA-15") for *Ka and RDBS band testing*.


Thank you.

While those testing items don't come as a surprise to anyone following D-14's plans...that information does confirm some onboard capabilities that will be tested for potential use at some point. Good to know.


----------



## HoTat2

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Thank you.
> 
> While those testing items don't come as a surprise to anyone following D-14's plans...that information does confirm some onboard capabilities that will be tested for potential use at some point. Good to know.


Yep,

I realize some of these official filings come as no surprise and may specify rather dry technical details pertaining to D14, they do reveal interesting inside nuggets within them about the satellite and it's operations at times. 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Thank you.
> 
> While those testing items don't come as a surprise to anyone following D-14's plans...that information does confirm some onboard capabilities that will be tested for potential use at some point. Good to know.


Yes, if you're wondering about RDBS, Directv's filings have already said it will be used on D14 and D15 for consumer content. It won't be internal use only like the Ka on 101.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

slice1900 said:


> Yes, if you're wondering about RDBS, Directv's filings have already said it will be used on D14 and D15 for consumer content. It won't be internal use only like the Ka on 101.


McNuggets of information are always tasty.


----------



## fleckrj

So, if I am reading the D12 history correctly, it was launched on December 28, 2009 and was in testing at 76° through at least April 23, 2010. Then, sometime between April 23, 2010 and May 17, 2010, it was moved from 76° to 103°. On May 17, 2010, Boeing handed the satellite over to DirecTV, which, to me signifies that the drift from 76° to 103° was completed by May 17, 2010. D12 went live on May 19, 2010, or two days after Boeing handed it over to DirecTV.

If I interpreted the D12 history correctly, and if D14 is actually at 99° on Feb 5, 2015, it could go live as soon as Feb 7, 2015.


----------



## HoTat2

Mission update:

D14's launch partner GSAT-16 is now fully fueled.

GSAT-16 is fueled for its Ariane 5 launch with DIRECTV-14 on December 4

November 20, 2014 - Ariane Flight VA221

India's GSAT-16 telecommunications satellite has been fueled at the Spaceport for its launch on Arianespace's next heavy-lift Ariane 5 mission, which is scheduled for December 4 from French Guiana.

Developed by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), GSAT-16 will have a liftoff mass of approximately 3,150 kg. It carries Ku- and C-band transponders to further augment communication services across India.

GSAT-16 will be joined on Arianespace's upcoming Ariane 5 mission by co-passenger DIRECTV-14, which was built by SSL (Space Systems/Loral) for operator DIRECTV. This relay platform is a 20-kilowatt-class Ka-band and reverse-band digital broadcast satellite, to be used in delivering Ultra HD and other new consumer services for DIRECTV.

The mission with GSAT-16 and DIRECTV-14 will be Ariane 5's sixth launch in 2014, and is designated Flight VA221 in Arianespace's numbering system for its family of launchers - which also includes the medium-lift Soyuz and lightweight Vega vehicles.

http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2014/1237.asp










Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Sixto

slice1900 said:


> ... And I'm still curious, how long it has taken in the past from the time a satellite reaches final position to the time it begins full operations. The links Sixto posted are great and I'm sure the information is in there if I read through those threads, but I'm hoping someone might have that information off the top of their heads so I don't have to go digging for it





fleckrj said:


> So, if I am reading the D12 history correctly, it was launched on December 28, 2009 and was in testing at 76° through at least April 23, 2010. Then, sometime between April 23, 2010 and May 17, 2010, it was moved from 76° to 103°. On May 17, 2010, Boeing handed the satellite over to DirecTV, which, to me signifies that the drift from 76° to 103° was completed by May 17, 2010. D12 went live on May 19, 2010, or two days after Boeing handed it over to DirecTV.
> 
> If I interpreted the D12 history correctly, and if D14 is actually at 99° on Feb 5, 2015, it could go live as soon as Feb 7, 2015.


After the testing at the interim location, and once the satellite reaches it's final home, it can be quick, but we did see some delay with D10 because there was an authorization issue.

We've also learned from the previous launches that the time from launch to interim location, and then to the final spot can vary depending on how much fuel they want to burn in the process. They can move fairly quickly if they want to, but that's not always the case.

And with D12 there was additional testing that we weren't originally aware of, thus the net is that there's many variables.

We usually guess it will be quick but something always seems to change that, but it was always fun to track the progress, sometimes multiple updates per day, until the final resting spot. It was hectic for months always wanting to disect the info within minutes of reciept, and the receipt was always random.


----------



## harsh

It is probably not a good idea to set one's timeline expectations on DIRECTV's FCC filings. DIRECTV is no stranger to the extension.

Performance record is probably a better metric and DIRECTV 11 is probably the closest match with the slight advantage of having a true equatorial launch.


----------



## Oli74

Thanks it will would be great to see it. Is it in the morning or later that day?


----------



## harsh

Oli74 said:


> Is it in the morning or later that day?


Launch is currently slated for 15:38-16:38 in your time zone.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Launch is currently slated for 15:38-16:38 in your time zone.


That is to say with +1 hour launch window, 3:38 PM to 4:48 PM EST.

EDIT: Additional 10 mln. correction added at end of launch window as indicated in the later released Launch Kit.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Sea bass

HoTat2 said:


> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Fantastic info! Thanks


----------



## HoTat2

VA221 Launch Kit for D14 and GSAT-16 now available from Arianespace for the convenience of all the non-rocket scientists (or "Laymen")  to help keep abreast of everything.

View attachment 25794


.


----------



## RAD

Interesting that it only mentions the 18 national RBS CONUS transponders and nothing about Ka CONUS.


----------



## Sixto

Hey HoTat, you're really doing an awesome job. I was so worried when I drifted to the Roamio dark side, but you and a few others really have excelled at the info. Now the daily TLE's for everyone to debate!


----------



## P Smith

daily ?
nay, bring an orbit parameters on EACH TLE !!!


----------



## Sixto

You're right. All the analysis can be all day every day, for a few months.


----------



## slice1900

RAD said:


> Interesting that it only mentions the 18 national RBS CONUS transponders and nothing about Ka CONUS.


It mentions the Ka transponders too. It mentions the RDBS first because its talking about "the latest in satellite technology". But immediately after it says it has 16 Ka and 18 RDBS, and later mentions all the spot beam transponders.

Keep in mind, this is Arianespace material. They don't care so much about the capabilities of the satellites they're launching, but how they accomplish the launch.


----------



## RAD

slice1900 said:


> It mentions the Ka transponders too. It mentions the RDBS first because its talking about "the latest in satellite technology". But immediately after it says it has 16 Ka and 18 RDBS, and later mentions all the spot beam transponders.
> 
> Keep in mind, this is Arianespace material. They don't care so much about the capabilities of the satellites they're launching, but how they accomplish the launch.


Where they don't mention it is in the chart on page 3, that's what I was posting about. But as you say they really don't care, just want to get the payload in orbit and they're done.


----------



## HoTat2

RAD said:


> Where they don't mention it is in the chart on page 3, that's what I was posting about. But as you say they really don't care, just want to get the payload in orbit and they're done.


Yeah ....

Its a bit strange.

On page two of the LK they mention the 16 Ka CONUS beam transponders, but not the 76 spotbeam ones.

Then on page three, the 76 spotbeam ones are mentioned, but not the CONUS ones this time. Oh well, perhaps its as slice says, AS is primarily interested in accurately describing the launch process which gets the satellites to GTO in the LK. Not necessarily the correct specifications of the satellite payloads themselves (except for maybe their launch mass/weights).


----------



## HoTat2

Sixto said:


> Hey HoTat, you're really doing an awesome job. I was so worried when I drifted to the Roamio dark side, but you and a few others really have excelled at the info. Now the daily TLE's for everyone to debate!


Hey thanks;

I figured something had happened on your end by going with a another provider and a change to your setup or some other and therefore felt some others here needed to help take up the slack as the page one of this thread wasn't updating.

And also glad Doctor j is still here to post those orbital graphics based on the TLE releases as they come out.


----------



## bakers12

Near the bottom of page 6 of the launch kit, it says "filling of the EPC liquid helium tank." What is the helium for? Some sort of pressure control, like in an aerosol can?


----------



## P Smith

Usually for create a pressure in tank of first stage, also could be used in for cooling astronomy sensors.


----------



## doctor j

HoTat2 said:


> Hey thanks;
> 
> I figured something had happened on your end by going with a another provider and a change to your setup or some other and therefore felt some others here needed to help take up the slack as the page one of this thread wasn't updating.
> 
> And also glad Doctor j is still here to post those orbital graphics based on the TLE releases as they come out.


I've been warming up on Intelsat 30 and am ready to go!!

Doctor j


----------



## HoTat2

Mission update:
D14 has been "pointed." That is to say successfully placed atop the SYLDA payload dispenser, and then covered by the fairing shroud. 
So in a sense you can say "goodbye" to it as its the last time it will be seen by human eyes. 

*November 26, 2014 - Ariane Flight VA221*
DIRECTV-14 is "pointed" for its liftoff next week on Arianespace's dual-payload Ariane 5 mission.








*In this photo sequence from the Spaceport's Final Assembly Building for Ariane 5, DIRECTV-14 is readied for mating to the SYLDA dispenser unit (image at left), followed by its encapsulation with the payload fairing.*
The upper passenger for Arianespace's dual-satellite launch from French Guiana next week has been encapsulated in its protective payload fairing, preparing the DIRECTV-14 relay platform for its integration on Ariane 5.
During activity in the Spaceport's Final Assembly Building for Ariane 5, DIRECTV-14 was mounted on the launcher's SYLDA dispenser unit, followed by the lowering of a large ogive-shaped payload fairing over the combined unit - creating the mission's "upper composite" section.
With this step completed, the upper composite is now ready to be integrated on the launcher by its positioning atop the mission's other passenger, India's GSAT-16 satellite, which is to be integrated on Ariane 5's core cryogenic stage.
DIRECTV-14 is the larger of Ariane 5's two passengers on the December 4 mission, and will serve as a 20-kilowatt class Ka-band and reverse-band digital broadcast satellite to deliver Ultra HD and other new consumer services for DIRECTV. Based on the SSL (Space Systems/Loral) 1300 spacecraft platform with a liftoff mass of approximately 6,300 kg., it is to provide service for users across the U.S. (including Hawaii and Alaska) and Puerto Rico.
The GSAT-16 satellite that also will be launched on the upcoming Ariane 5 mission was developed by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), and carries Ku- and C-band transponders to further augment communication services across India. GSAT-16's liftoff mass is estimated at 3,180 kg.
Arianespace's December 4 launch is designed Flight VA221 in the company's launcher family numbering system, signifying the 221st liftoff of an Ariane family vehicle from the Spaceport.
http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2014/1239.asp


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Will the launch be carried by D* or will it be streaming only? I'd like to be able to record it.


----------



## HoTat2

TheRatPatrol said:


> Will the launch be carried by D* or will it be streaming only? I'd like to be able to record it.


Well ...

I notice the launch coverage is now showing in the guide on channel 9550, a "Private Network" (PVNT) channel on 12/4 from 3-5 PM EST and listed as in HD too.

But whether or not DIRECTV will open it for customer viewing is anyone's guess. They certainly should I would think, though don't be surprised if it comes up as a 721 N/A at start time.

Note: There is also a short 30 min. telecast listed for D14's launch coverage as well on the same channel on 12/2 at 8-8:30 AM EST.

Don't know what that's about...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## longrider

I know on a previous launch, I think it was D-12, they did open up the private channel to everybody. I recorded it but I have swapped out DVRs since then so I cant check


----------



## Oli74

i just saw it also on 9950 i hope we can see it its the day after my b-day


----------



## loudo

If it is not on DirecTV you might get it live here: http://www.arianespace.tv/


----------



## Oli74

loudo said:


> If it is not on DirecTV you might get it live here: http://www.arianespace.tv/


 thanks

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

Directv-14 mission director and Arianespace official offer brief comments on YouTube about upcoming launch.

http://t.co/UlmWXQj6FN

http://t.co/n21jJ5XEWP

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## cypherx

This is great. Less than a week away now! Thanks for the youtube posts. Good find!


----------



## Oli74

3 days to my birthday and 4 days until launch 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## longrider

HoTat2 said:


> Well ...
> 
> I notice the launch coverage is now showing in the guide on channel 9550, a "Private Network" (PVNT) channel on 12/4 from 3-5 PM EST and listed as in HD too.
> 
> But whether or not DIRECTV will open it for customer viewing is anyone's guess. They certainly should I would think, though don't be surprised if it comes up as a 721 N/A at start time.


Good news: 9550 has already been opened up to the public, info is Upcoming: DirecTV14 launch and you already get a DirecTV logo and music. I was able to select the launch for recording.


----------



## Oli74

longrider said:


> Good news: 9550 has already been opened up to the public, info is Upcoming: DirecTV14 launch and you already get a DirecTV logo and music. I was able to select the launch for recording.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Oli74

Can't wait to watch it 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheRatPatrol

longrider said:


> Good news: 9550 has already been opened up to the public, info is Upcoming: DirecTV14 launch and you already get a DirecTV logo and music. I was able to select the launch for recording.


Thanks for the info.

But I'm seeing D14 Satellite Launch scheduled for 12/2 at 8am EST for 30 minutes and another scheduled for 12/4 at 3pm EST for 2 hours. Which is which? Thanks


----------



## dennisj00

TheRatPatrol said:


> Thanks for the info.
> 
> But I'm seeing D14 Satellite Launch scheduled for 12/2 at 8am EST for 30 minutes and another scheduled for 12/4 at *3pm EST for 2 hours*. Which is which? Thanks


This one.


----------



## dpeters11

Will be a good day for launches. Orion test launch in the morning, D14 in the afternoon.


----------



## alnielsen

dpeters11 said:


> Will be a good day for launches. Orion test launch in the morning, D14 in the afternoon.


Yes, I was looking forward to this launch also. At this time, it's scheduled to launch at 7:05 am ET.


----------



## georule

longrider said:


> Good news: 9550 has already been opened up to the public, info is Upcoming: DirecTV14 launch and you already get a DirecTV logo and music. I was able to select the launch for recording.


Nice. I'm set up to record too now at 2pm CST.


----------



## inkahauts

Dang wish I could set up a recording for Orion too. Now to seeing I can just remember.


----------



## Oli74

inkahauts said:


> Dang wish I could set up a recording for Orion too. Now to seeing I can just remember.


It's at 7:00am on the 4th on the NASA Channel

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dpeters11

Oli74 said:


> It's at 7:00am on the 4th on the NASA Channel
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Unfortunately directv doesn't have it in HD and something like this really deserves HD and a big screen. I'm going to see how using Miracast from my BlackBerry to my Fire TV stick works out and watch the launch live. I don't have to leave for work until 7:30 so u have a little leeway.


----------



## Oli74

dpeters11 said:


> Unfortunately directv doesn't have it in HD and something like this really deserves HD and a big screen. I'm going to see how using Miracast from my BlackBerry to my Fire TV stick works out and watch the launch live. I don't have to leave for work until 7:30 so u have a little leeway.


With new D14 launch maybe will have NASA HD by February orMarch

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

*Mission update:*

Launcher buildup complete, next stop the launch pad (ELA-3).

Respective assembly teams "take a bow" with group pictures and do the traditional signing of the company graphics applied to the payload fairing.

Launcher buildup completed: DIRECTV-14 and GSAT-16 are both integrated for this week's Ariane 5 liftoff








*Ariane 5 launcher buildup was completed with the positioning of DIRECTV-14 - which is encapsulated in the ogive-shaped protective fairing - atop its GSAT-16 co-passenger (photo at left). This was followed by the application on Ariane 5's fairing of graphics representing these payloads, marked by the corresponding DIRECTV-14 and GSAT-16 teams in the center and right-hand images.*

*December 1, 2014 - Ariane Flight VA221*
The Ariane 5 for Arianespace's upcoming flight from French Guiana is now complete following integration of its two satellite passengers: DIRECTV-14 for operator DIRECTV, and the Indian Space Research Organisation's (ISRO) GSAT-16 - both of which will be orbited on this heavy-lift mission planned for December 4.
Encapsulated in the ogive-shaped protective fairing, DIRECTV-14 has been positioned atop GSAT-16 - which was installed on the launcher's cryogenic core stage during activity inside the Spaceport's Final Assembly Building for Ariane 5.
These successful integration steps enable a new series of preparation milestones to begin. They include the launch readiness review on December 2, which is to be followed by Ariane 5's rollout to the ELA-3 launch zone the next day.
Liftoff is scheduled during a 1-hr., 10-min. launch window opening on December 4 at 5:38 p.m. local time in French Guiana, with the two spacecraft to be deployed on a flight lasting approximately 32 minutes.
Ariane 5 will deliver a payload lift performance of more than 10,200 kg. during the mission, which includes a combined total of over 9,470 kg. for DIRECTV-14 and GSAT-16, plus the launch vehicle's dual-passenger dispenser system and satellite integration hardware.







*After the related DIRECTV-14 and GSAT-16 payload graphics were applied, the various satellite team members made their mark - adding personal signatures and other messages ahead of Ariane 5's December 4 liftoff. *


----------



## dpeters11

Looks like weather is supposed to be good. Of course many days around that, they are calling for thunderstorms.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Check your recordings for the launch on Thursday. I had to reschedule mine for some reason, it "fell off" the todo list.


----------



## bobnielsen

TheRatPatrol said:


> Check your recordings for the launch on Thursday. I had to reschedule mine for some reason, it "fell off" the todo list.


Mine is still there but the "other" listing for Tuesday morning is gone (whatever it was).


----------



## Oli74

bobnielsen said:


> Mine is still there but the "other" listing for Tuesday morning is gone (whatever it was).


Mine is still set to record for 8am tomorrow

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## freerein100

What ever was scheduled for tomorrow morning is no longer in the guide


----------



## cypherx

Well the launch is thursday so I didn't schedule anything to record on tomorrow.


----------



## Oli74

cypherx said:


> Well the launch is thursday so I didn't schedule anything to record on tomorrow.


I noticed whatever I set to record at 8am this morning is gone

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

Oli74 said:


> I noticed whatever I set to record at 8am this morning is gone
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It seems that whenever ch. 9550 became active for regular subscribers showing the still graphic and music as it is now, the guide listings for the channel changed with that strange 8:00-8:30 AM EST Tues. program disappearing.

Yet oddly, both that recording as well as the actual 2 hour telecast for the launch Thurs. I had scheduled disappeared as well.

Good thing I saw Rat Patrol's earlier post warning to check your upcoming recordings for this event. 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Athlon646464

*Arianespace ready for final Ariane-5 flight of 2014 with DIRECTV-14 and GSAT-16*

(spaceflightinsider.com) - The sixth launch of an Ariane-5 rocket is scheduled to take off on Dec. 4 between 8:38 p.m. and 9:48 p.m. from the Kourou spaceport in French Guiana. Flight VA221 will see the Ariane-5 flying in the ECA configuration with two satellite passengers: DIRECTV-14 and GSAT-16....

Full Story Here


----------



## HoTat2

*Mission update:*

"Launch Readiness Review" completed and passed. Final permission is thereby given a go for launch, so transfer of the completed launcher with payloads from the final assembly building (the BAF) to launch pad "ELA-3" will take place tomorrow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The go-ahead is given for Arianespace's dual-payload Ariane 5 flight with DIRECTV-14 and GSAT-16"

*December 2, 2014 - Ariane Flight VA221*

Arianespace's sixth heavy-lift mission of 2014 has been given the go-ahead for Thursday's liftoff from the Spaceport on a dual-passenger Ariane 5 flight carrying the DIRECTV-14 and GSAT-16 satellites.









The approval was provided today at completion of the launch readiness review, which is held prior to every Arianespace mission to validate the readiness of Ariane 5 with its two payloads, as well as the Spaceport's status and tracking stations downrange.
This clears the Ariane 5 for its transfer tomorrow from the Spaceport's Final Assembly Building to the ELA-3 launch zone, where the final countdown will begin.
Scheduled for liftoff during a 1-hr., 10-min. launch window that opens at 5:38 p.m. local time on December 4 in French Guiana, the two spacecraft will be deployed during a flight lasting approximately 32 minutes.
Payload lift performance for Ariane 5 is more than 10,200 kg., which includes a combined total of some 9,480 kg. for the DIRECTV-14 and GSAT-16 passengers, plus the launch vehicle's dual-passenger dispenser system and satellite integration hardware.
DIRECTV-14 is installed in the upper payload position on Ariane 5, and is the larger of this mission's two passengers. As a 20-kilowatt class Ka-band and reverse-band digital broadcast satellite built by SSL (Space Systems/Loral), it will deliver Ultra HD and other new consumer services for DIRECTV.
Located in the launcher's lower payload slot, GSAT-16 was developed by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), and carries Ku- and C-band transponders to further augment communication services across India.
Thursday's Ariane 5 mission is designated Flight VA221 in Arianespace's launcher system numbering system, signifying the 221st liftoff of an Ariane family vehicle from the Spaceport in French Guiana. 
http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2014/1242.asp


----------



## coolman302003

I setup a Manual Recording so I won't have to worry about a guide/programming update that might cause it not to record.


----------



## Oli74

I am so glad I'm off from work this Thursday to watch the launch 1st from NASA at 7am and then the D14 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

Arianespace's Launch Site Operations Manager offers comments about the preparation for flight VA221 on YouTube.

All has gone very smooth to this point. ...

http://t.co/3ruPeKzHMr

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

*Mission update*

Ariane 5 ECA rocket carrying D14/RB-1 and GSAT-16 left the final assembly building earlier today and was "rolled" (on a giant "launch table") into position at the ELA-3 launch complex.

Everything's a go for tomorrow! 

*Arianespace's Ariane 5 rolls out to the launch zone for tomorrow's dual-passenger mission.*








The heavy-lift Ariane 5 vehicle is transferred from the Spaceport's Final Assembly Building - where it received its DIRECTV-14 and GSAT-16 payloads - to the ELA-3 launch zone.

*December 3, 2014 - Ariane Flight VA221*
Ariane 5 is now in position at the ELA-3 launch complex for its December 4 mission in service of two long-standing Arianespace customers: DIRECTV and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).
During activity at the Spaceport today, the workhorse heavy-lift vehicle - with its DIRECTV-14 and GSAT-16 dual-passenger payload - was transferred atop its mobile launch table from the Final Assembly Building to the dedicated Ariane 5 launch zone.
Designated Flight VA221 in the company's numbering system, Arianespace's sixth heavy-lift mission of the year is scheduled to lift off tomorrow during a 1-hr., 10-min. launch window that opens at 5:38 p.m. local time in French Guiana.
As the seventh satellite to be lofted by Arianespace with a DIRECTV payload, DIRECTV-14 is the mission's upper passenger and will be released first in the flight sequence at nearly 28 minutes after liftoff. Built by SSL (Space Systems/Loral), DIRECTV-14 is a 20-kilowatt class Ka-band and reverse-band digital broadcast satellite that will deliver Ultra HD and other new consumer services for DIRECTV.
GSAT-16 - which is installed in the vehicle's lower position - will be the 18th satellite launched by Arianespace for ISRO and is to be separated at just over 32 minutes after liftoff to complete Ariane 5's mission. Carrying Ku- and C-band transponders to further augment communication services across India, the GSAT-16 spacecraft was developed by the country's ISRO space agency.
http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2014/1243.asp


----------



## HoTat2

*WARNING:*

Say folks, those who are trying to record the launch tomorrow keep a close check on your scheduled recording of it in the Todo list.

I notice that DIRECTV changed the guide listing of it again, moving the start time of the telecast back 10 min. to 3:10 PM EST. For some reason on this channel this causes my previous set recording from 3-5 EST in the list to disappear altogether again.

Had to reset it once more.


----------



## cypherx

I just checked an my scheduled recording was automatically updated to the 3:10 time. Not sure why it's just dropping off for you guys.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

HoTat2 said:


> *WARNING:*
> 
> Say folks, those who are trying to record the launch tomorrow keep a close check on your scheduled recording of it in the Todo list.
> 
> I notice that DIRECTV changed the guide listing of it again, moving the start time of the telecast back 10 min. to 3:10 PM EST. For some reason on this channel this causes my previous set recording from 3-5 EST in the list to disappear altogether again.
> 
> Had to reset it once more.


Thanks for the info.



coolman302003 said:


> I setup a Manual Recording so I won't have to worry about a guide/programming update that might cause it not to record.


I took your advice and did this too.


----------



## Oli74

Anyone watching the Orion launch? I hope the launch for this afternoon won't have the same delays 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48

Oli74 said:


> Anyone watching the Orion launch? I hope the launch for this afternoon won't have the same delays
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And Houston we have a problem&#8230;.


----------



## FHSPSU67

Orion now scrubbed for today


----------



## P Smith

FHSPSU67 said:


> Orion now scrubbed for today


wrong thread, lets keep the topic


----------



## woj027

this link is supposed to have the launch on it as well

http://www.arianespace.tv/


----------



## Oli74

P Smith said:


> wrong thread, lets keep the topic


4 hours to launch can't wait

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WB4CS

Deleted comment, I was looking at the wrong channel.


----------



## dennisj00

The listing or 9950 is gone.


----------



## Sixto

woj027 said:


> this link is supposed to have the launch on it as well
> 
> http://www.arianespace.tv/


Hmmm. That link says postponed.


----------



## woj027

Sixto said:


> Hmmm. That link says postponed.


hmm will look around the site for more info.

http://www.arianespace.tv/

??

says postponed due to weather.

http://www.arianespace.com/news-press-release/2014/12-4-2014-VA221-launch-postponed.asp


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/540559636089544706

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/540559636089544706


----------



## Sixto

Postponed: http://www.arianespace.com/news-press-release/2014/12-4-2014-VA221-launch-postponed.asp


----------



## Oli74

The channel now says TBA 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FloorHead

Postponed due to weather.



> The launch of #Ariane5 Flight #VA221 is postponed due to unfavorable weather conditions over Kourou, French Guiana. Another launch date for #Ariane5 Flight #VA221 will be decided depending on the evolution of the weather conditions in Kourou.


----------



## Oli74

FloorHead said:


> Postponed due to weather.


Wow two in one day no good

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sixto

We've learned over the years tracking this stuff daily, always expect the unexpected, whether it be satellite launches or channel launches. Stuff happens.


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN

The hoping to launch the satellites tomorrow


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## alnielsen

As to not miss any rescheduled launch, can I set up in the Series Manager a AALL SATELLITE LAUNCH entry? I don't remember how it was named in the Program Guide.


----------



## P Smith

The launch will happen regardless your dvr,schedule, intention, availability, etc... relax and wait for press release. No need to flood the thread.


----------



## harsh

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> The hoping to launch the satellites tomorrow


According to Weather Underground, the weather forecast doesn't look a whole lot better for the next few days.

http://www.wunderground.com/weather-forecast/FG/Kourou.html


----------



## Oli74

harsh said:


> According to Weather Underground, the weather forecast doesn't look a whole lot better for the next few days.
> 
> http://www.wunderground.com/weather-forecast/FG/Kourou.html


All I see is rain in the I coming days hopefully it can launch before it rains

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bakers12

alnielsen said:


> As to not miss any rescheduled launch, can I set up in the Series Manager a AALL SATELLITE LAUNCH entry? I don't remember how it was named in the Program Guide.


I think it was called "DIRECTV-14 Satellite Launch," but I don't trust my memory. I created a Series Manager following your suggestion.

EDIT: I see "D14 Satellite Launch" is back in the schedule for Friday and the boolean autorecord scheduled it.


----------



## Laxguy

Is 9550 the key channel - likely to be the one once rescheduled?


----------



## slice1900

I assume delays like this tend to push back the whole future launch schedule, since this rocket needs to be launched so they can start settings things up for the next launch? If it is just a day no big deal, but if there's a week of bad weather it would push back all the launches in 2015 by a week?


----------



## cypherx

Too bad they couldn't launch it from here. It was a beautiful day today!


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> I assume delays like this tend to push back the whole future launch schedule, since this rocket needs to be launched so they can start settings things up for the next launch? If it is just a day no big deal, but if there's a week of bad weather it would push back all the launches in 2015 by a week?


the big issue is with liquid components like LOX; fueled rocket cannot stay on launch pad for weeks; affer certain days it must be empted, and refueled later, right before next scheduled launch


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> I assume delays like this tend to push back the whole future launch schedule, since this rocket needs to be launched so they can start settings things up for the next launch? If it is just a day no big deal, but if there's a week of bad weather it would push back all the launches in 2015 by a week?


I doubt it affects them at all If they don't have to bring the rocket back inside and do the defule refule....

I believe They where working on these satelites before the last one was launched at the facility. Seems they move the satelites to different areas for each stage of prep?


----------



## HoTat2

Some in the know are tweeting the countdown has begun again with the initial T-0 point (or the opening of the 1:10 launch window) at the same time of 3:38 PM EST. Nothing official from Arianespace to confirm, though I see DIRECTV has it up in the schedule on 9550 again for the same 3:10 PM EST start time.

Weather forecasts for Guiana at launch time look good, so should I'd wager it's going be a go today ...


----------



## Sixto

And Orion took off.


----------



## Oli74

HoTat2 said:


> Some in the know are tweeting the countdown has begun again with the initial T-0 point (or the opening of the 1:10 launch window) at the same time of 3:38 PM EST. Nothing official from Arianespace to confirm, though I see DIRECTV has it up in the schedule on 9550 again for the same 3:10 PM EST start time.
> 
> Weather forecasts for Guiana at launch time look good, so should I'd wager it's going be a go today ...


Well like Orion hopefully goes up today

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

Oli74 said:


> All I see is rain in the I coming days hopefully it can launch before it rains


I don't think rain is the issue. Thunderheads create some interesting winds aloft and I suspect that may be more of a concern.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> I assume delays like this tend to push back the whole future launch schedule, since this rocket needs to be launched so they can start settings things up for the next launch?


VA222 isn't slated until some time in March so I doubt it is an issue.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> Some in the know are tweeting the countdown has begun again with the initial T-0 point (or the opening of the 1:10 launch window) at the same time of 3:38 PM EST. Nothing official from Arianespace to confirm, though I see DIRECTV has it up in the schedule on 9550 again for the same 3:10 PM EST start time.


Salo's schedule is showing TBD for 20:39-21:49 Zulu so there is support there.


----------



## georule

It's back on the guide on 9550 for 2:10p-4P (CST) today.


----------



## woj027

odd their twitter and website have no updates with any suggestion that launch is back on.


----------



## Oli74

woj027 said:


> odd their twitter and website have no updates with any suggestion that launch is back on.


And is no longer on showing on channel 9550 it was their about 45 minutes ago

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mrknowitall526

Strange, I can find it on the guide on the app but it won't let me record. Hopefully I'm home in time!


----------



## WB4CS

Yeah I'm getting an error when I try to schedule it via the website. GRRR.


----------



## cypherx

If its postponed, do they consider launching on a weekend or would it sit on the pad until Monday? I heard upper atmospheric conditions are not favorable right now.


----------



## HoTat2

Oli74 said:


> And is no longer on showing on channel 9550 it was their about 45 minutes ago
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Its back up again on 9550;

Rescheduled the recording of it.

Agree with mrknowitali526 earlier though. Weird Arianespace hasn't posted a thing yet on the launch status in almost 24 hrs. now.


----------



## HoTat2

cypherx said:


> If its postponed, do they consider launching on a weekend or would it sit on the pad until Monday? I heard upper atmospheric conditions are not favorable right now.


AS employees are usually off on the weekends. Don't know if they make exceptions for delayed launches running into them.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Oli74

@Arianespace: Flight #VA221 update: #Ariane5’s launch is postponed due to high altitude winds ... From Twitter 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cypherx

Postponed until tomorrow 02:09 hrs (IST)

http://www.isro.org/

So they will attempt on a Saturday.


----------



## Athlon646464

cypherx said:


> Postponed until tomorrow 02:09 hrs (IST)
> 
> http://www.isro.org/
> 
> So they will attempt on a Saturday.


"GSAT-16 Launch rescheduled on early morning of Dec 06, 2014 at 02:09 hrs (IST) is postponed due to inclement weather conditions at French Guiana"

I'm reading that as if it were re-scheduled for that time but it has been postponed again......

Other news outlets had it being launched at that time about 3 hours ago.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/GSAT-16-rescheduled-for-launch-on-Saturday/articleshow/45388484.cms


----------



## slice1900

Dec 6 02:09 IST = Dec 5 02:39 PM CST, so sounds like it is postponed until tomorrow or Monday.


----------



## HoTat2

Athlon646464 said:


> "GSAT-16 Launch rescheduled on early morning of Dec 06, 2014 at 02:09 hrs (IST) is postponed due to inclement weather conditions at French Guiana"
> 
> I'm reading that as if it were re-scheduled for that time but it has been postponed again......
> 
> Other news outlets had it being launched at that time about 3 hours ago.
> 
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/GSAT-16-rescheduled-for-launch-on-Saturday/articleshow/45388484.cms


That's the way I'm reading it too.

Dec. 6 at 02:09 IST (Indian Standard Time) would be the time of the first postponed launch scheduled for today Dec. 5 on this side of the world.

So we still don't know if AS will do a Saturday launch or not.


----------



## cypherx

Yeah, your right. Reading that fast I assumed the 6th was in French Guiana time but I see its in IST.

http://www.arianespace.com/news-press-release/2014/12-5-2014-VA221-launch-postponed2.asp

Now the official source says "Another launch date will be decided depending on the evolution of the weather conditions in Kourou. "
So TBD!

The french translation at the Kourou Space Port basically says the same thing:
http://www.cnes-csg.fr/


----------



## Riverpilot

Hope for good weather soon then.


----------



## Ed Campbell

Guess I can stop recording boring 50's pop?


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## longrider

I dont know how big a deal simple rainfall is but Kourou has rain forecast every day for the next ten days with a total of over 2 1/2 inches in those 10 days


----------



## fleckrj

Wind is the problem. Rain is fine as long as it is not thunderstorms or high wind.


----------



## HoTat2

DIRECTV has the launch scheduled in the guide again. Same time span (3:10-5 PM EST) as the others.

Some are tweeting another attempt will be made beginning at 3:40 PM EST on a 1:10 hr. window. So perhaps AS does work over the weekend if necessary, though nothing official from AS on any of this as of yet.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

I would think they are working till its launched now.


----------



## FHSPSU67

"GSAT-16 Launch rescheduled on Dec 06, 2014 at 02:09 hrs (IST) is postponed due to inclement weather conditions at French Guiana
GSAT-16 Launch is rescheduled on early morning of Dec 07, 2014 at 02:10 hrs (IST) from French Guiana"

From Indian Space Research Org.

http://www.isro.org/

I think this means it has been rescheduled for this afternoon.


----------



## Athlon646464

IST is 10.5 hours ahead of EST.

2:10am IST = 3:40pm EST.


----------



## RAD

Yep, looks like trying again later today, countdown clock is running, http://www.arianespace.tv


----------



## HoTat2

Yeah...

Official press release from AS posted a few minutes ago confirming another attempt today.

"Arianespace Flight VA221 scheduled for December 6
Kourou, December 6, 2014

In light of the improvement in the weather conditions over the Guiana Space Center, Arianespace has decided to restart the countdown for Ariane Flight VA221. This mission will place two satellites into orbit: DIRECTV-14 and GSAT-16.

Llift-off of the Ariane 5 ECA launcher is now set for the night of Saturday, December 6, as early as possible in the following launch window:

From 5:40 p.m. to 6:49 p.m., local time in Kourou, French Guiana
From 3:40 p.m. to 4:49 p.m. in Washington D.C.
From 8:40 p.m. to 9:49 p.m. UTC,
From 9:40 p.m. to 10:49 p.m. in Paris,
From 2:10 a.m. to 3:19 a.m. in Bangalore, on Sunday, December 7."

http://www.arianespace.com/news-press-release/2014/12-6-2014-VA221.asp

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

they will launch it eventually - not to worry,.. so much drama in the thread will not change anything  ... just relax and be patient - it will be in orbit soon.


----------



## Laxguy

Thank you ever so much for those comforting words, Mr. Smith; I will sleep better now.


----------



## joed32

Countdown is at 2 hours 4 minutes.


----------



## Oli74

2 hours to launch time 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

Someone named "Clay Mowry" at GSC, don't know what is he specifically does there, nevertheless tweets that the launch will indeed be telecast on ch. 9550 and streamed live on arinespace.tv .

Sure hope he's implying that the broadcast will be in the open, and not just for a private group come program start time.

https://twitter.com/ClayMowry?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arianespace.com%2Fnews-mission-update%2F2014%2F1234.asp&profile_id=249165540&tw_i=541293754640904192&tw_p=embeddedtimeline&tw_w=254625449227984896


----------



## Oli74

1 hour to launch time 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gpg

Just tried turning to channel 9550 and got the 721 error code for an unsubscribed channel. Does anyone else have this problem?


----------



## lwilli201

gpg said:


> Just tried turning to channel 9550 and got the 721 error code for an unsubscribed channel. Does anyone else have this problem?


Same problem. Did refresh but that did not help. On all my receivers.


----------



## cforrest

I think we'll have to wait until a few minutes before launch for the channel to open up for us. Hopefully in 10 minutes we don't get the 721 error.


----------



## gpg

cforrest said:


> I think we'll have to wait until a few minutes before launch for the channel to open up for us. Hopefully in 10 minutes we don't get the 721 error.


Hope you're right. Earlier in the week I was getting the D logo on 9550.


----------



## P Smith

are we there ?


----------



## Oli74

gpg said:


> Hope you're right. Earlier in the week I was getting the D logo on 9550.


Ok I'm glad I'm not only one getting the 721 message

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rob

was getting it earlier, now music and Directv Logo


----------



## cforrest

Arianespace has their webcast starting at 3:25PM EST, so it looks like the channel won't go live and in the clear for us until then or just before then.


----------



## Renard

You can still watch it here in case they don't "open" the channel

http://www.arianespace.tv/


----------



## Sixto

721 here.


----------



## inkahauts

721 here too.


----------



## Rob

I dont know, try tuning to channel one and hit channel down to it. Maybe that would remove the 721 error?


----------



## gpg

Rob said:


> I dont know, try tuning to channel one and hit channel down to it. Maybe that would remove the 721 error?


Are you certain you're tuned to 9550? 9950 has the logo and music on.


----------



## Rob

gpg said:


> Are you certain you're tuned to 9550? 9950 has the logo and music on.


whoops getting old. yup, my mistake.


----------



## Sixto

But the launch is 9550. Still 721.


----------



## gpg

Yep. That's the problem. Looks like we'll be shut out on TV.


----------



## ladannen

http://www.arianespace.tv/ says webcast starts at 20:25 UTC. 
Hopefully everything (including 9550 will be up in 4 minutes?)


----------



## cforrest

ladannen said:


> http://www.arianespace.tv/ says webcast starts at 20:25 UTC.
> Hopefully everything (including 9550 will be up in 4 minutes?)


Correct, I stated that earlier. 30 seconds and counting on webcast until live broadcast starts. D* should open up 9550 soon.


----------



## Rob

10 seconds


----------



## Jacob Braun

I'm seeing "The D-14 satellite launch broadcast will begin soon" but I see everything!


----------



## alnielsen

ladannen said:


> http://www.arianespace.tv/ says webcast starts at 20:25 UTC.
> Hopefully everything (including 9550 will be up in 4 minutes?)


It's live now


----------



## freerein100

Still 721


----------



## cforrest

12 minutes until liftoff!


----------



## Sixto

11 mins til launch.


----------



## dennisj00

721 here on both 34 and hr20

But it looks good on iPad via AppleTV.


----------



## inkahauts

No go on my tv. But on the computer is fine. Weird


----------



## Sixto

Yeah, via PC fine here. no go with 9550 (721)


----------



## gpg

Couldn't even see the webcast on my iPad. I had to boot up my laptop pc.


----------



## cforrest

3:40PM EST is the launch time. Guess D* is not going to open up 9550, so Arianespace online is the place to watch: http://www.arianespace.tv/


----------



## Rob

3 minutes


----------



## Sixto

yep, no go from ipad think because it needs flash. only PC.


----------



## Rob

1 Minute!


----------



## Rob

10 seconds 9 8 7 6.....


----------



## Sixto

good so far.


----------



## Rob

Not seeing any new channels yet. What's taking so long?


----------



## Sixto

Rob said:


> Not seeing any new channels yet. What's taking so long?


That's funny. 8 mins in and all fine.


----------



## tsduke

9550 must be a pending D14 channel. :coffee


----------



## dennisj00

In testing the other day with the iPad, Safari wouldn't show me anything from the site. I have iCab mobile loaded and it worked perfectly. 

No flash needed.


----------



## joed32

Soon.


----------



## bobnielsen

The announcer on arianespace.tv welcomed DirecTV viewers watching channel 9950 (sic).


----------



## inkahauts

Probably for on house people only.


----------



## MysteryMan

Nice launch. Looking forward to when the bird is fully functional and operating.


----------



## freerein100

D14 is free


----------



## inkahauts

Here is hoping this thing turns on with a big splash of new Hi Definition channels. 

Probably time for a new thread too now...


----------



## lwilli201

The quality of http://arianespace.tv/ is very good. I watched it through my pc to a 40" TV and it looked good.


----------



## MysteryMan

lwilli201 said:


> The quality of http://arianespace.tv/ is very good. I watched it through my pc to a 40" TV and it looked good.


Agree. Great picture quality with excellent narrative.


----------



## APB101

I missed it; but I'm glad the launch happened.

:righton:

Thanks, in general, for _this_ thread!


----------



## HoTat2

MysteryMan said:


> Agree. Great picture quality with excellent narrative.


Agreed here as well, and the raspberry to DIRECTV for privatizing the telecast;

One thing for certain that has been repeatedly stated, the RDBS band will be used, at least primarily for 4K UHDTV .


----------



## Laxguy

I missed the live, so watched the previous one! I take it there'll be a delay until today's launch goes up on archive there? Anyone know about how long?


----------



## yosoyellobo

Laxguy said:


> I missed the live, so watched the previous one! I take it there'll be a delay until today's launch goes up on archive there? Anyone know about how long?


Did the last one make it?


----------



## Sixto

Wonder if the change in flight is what caused the 721. Didn't update the authorization. Glad I was near PC. Yep, picture was great.


----------



## cypherx

I was out and that link did not work on my iPhone but a twitter search lead me to an alternate live stream which did have excellent quality. Nice work to all the researchers and all the informative posts to this thread. Cheers everyone, crack open a bottle tonight and celebrate another one of mankind's great accomplishments!


----------



## Rob

channel 9550 doesn't have the 721 code anymore. Just he Directv logo.


----------



## Oli74

cypherx said:


> I was out and that link did not work on my iPhone but a twitter search lead me to an alternate live stream which did have excellent quality. Nice work to all the researchers and all the informative posts to this thread. Cheers everyone, crack open a bottle tonight and celebrate another one of mankind's great accomplishments!


I watched the whole stream on my iPhone it was great I can't wait to see what this new satellite will give us it should by February or March right?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bobnielsen

Sixto said:


> Wonder if the change in flight is what caused the 721. Didn't update the authorization. Glad I was near PC. Yep, picture was great.


Other than screen size it looked very good on my Mac. Hopefully someone will remember to throw the switch next time.


----------



## Ed Campbell

Laxguy said:


> I missed the live, so watched the previous one! I take it there'll be a delay until today's launch goes up on archive there? Anyone know about how long?


The launch itself is already up on YouTube:






I watched the launch - ongoing narration great - didn't leave till too many speeches of celebration...which is still OK. Used the Arianespace HD app from the Apple iOS App Store > iPad > AppleTV > living room TV looked like 1080p though I didn't check,


----------



## HarleyD

OK, so when do the TLEs start posting?


----------



## Sixto

Early Q2: http://news.directv.com/2014/12/05/4k-ultra-hd-gets-a-lift-with-successful-directv-satellite-launch/


----------



## HoTat2

Sixto said:


> Early Q2: http://news.directv.com/2014/12/05/4k-ultra-hd-gets-a-lift-with-successful-directv-satellite-launch/


To add a bit more, DIRECTV filed with the FCC for an arrival at its operational slot of 99W (specifically 99.235) by Feb. 5. Where in the 1st quarter live programming will begin from the new bird beyond that date is anyone's guess.

See my posts #1822 and #1823

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

HoTat2 said:


> Agreed here as well, and the raspberry to DIRECTV for privatizing the telecast.


The last launch DISH aired they set DRM so the event could not be recorded. 

Congrats on your new satellite DirecTV and DirecTV customers. The countdown begins to new HD, UHD and D-15.


----------



## bakers12

HoTat2 said:


> Where in the 1st quarter live programming will begin from the new bird beyond that date is anyone's guess.


In the post that Sixto linked to, it says "When the satellite begins operations in early second quarter of next year..."


----------



## Sixto

Assuming no issues it will be late q1, early q2. We've learned from the previous efforts, to always play it safe because it seems like something always comes up, thus why the public press release is conservative.


----------



## P Smith

Any TLE to analysis?


----------



## doctor j

I believe this to be Directv 14

10 TBA - TO BE ASSIGNED
Lon 82.3088° E
Lat 2.7388° N
Alt (km) 25 003.280
Azm 18.0°
Elv -58.4°
RA 15h 58m 07s
Decl -3° 08' 13"
Range (km) 36 641.154
RRt (km/s) -2.115
Vel (km/s) 3.009
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 285.3° (202)
TA 209.4°
Orbit # 0
Name 0 TBA - TO BE ASSIGNED
NORAD # 40332
COSPAR designator 2014-078-A 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-07 02:05:51
Orbit # at Epoch 0
Inclination 6.099
RA of A. Node 209.147
Eccentricity 0.7283973
Argument of Perigee 179.481
Revs per day 2.28615979
Period 10h 29m 52s (629.87 min)
Semi-major axis 24 341 km
Perigee x Apogee 233 x 35 692 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 175.642
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 3 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A

0 TBA - TO BE ASSIGNED
1 40332U 14078A 14341.08739603 .00000035 00000-0 00000+0 0 34
2 40332 006.0987 209.1465 7283973 179.4811 175.6416 02.28615979 00
0 TBA - TO BE ASSIGNED
1 40333U 14078B 14341.09143554 .00000034 00000-0 00000+0 0 28
2 40333 006.0064 210.7813 7285078 177.8858 178.5542 02.28068184 05
0 TBA - TO BE ASSIGNED
1 40334U 14078C 14341.09925356 .00000034 00000-0 00000+0 0 27
2 40334 006.0180 210.6225 7287105 178.0609 184.8701 02.27953577 06
0 TBA - TO BE ASSIGNED
1 40335U 14078D 14341.10657464 .00000033 00000-0 00000+0 0 21
2 40335 006.0075 210.7358 7286687 177.9601 190.7381 02.27775552 07

A will be DIRECTV14
B will be GSAT 16
C will be Stage 2 Rocket Booster ie ARIANE 5 R/B
D will be Sylda (Sat 1 and Sat b2Connector ie ARIANE 5 DEB (SYLDA)

Doctor j


----------



## P Smith

How long it will take it to geo?


----------



## doctor j

P Smith said:


> How long it will take it to geo?


If it's like Intelsat 30 only 5 days

Doctor j


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> How long it will take it to geo?


DIRECTV filed for no sooner than 12/14 to reach GEO at 76W to begin IOT.

See my posts #1822 and #1823

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

OK, that would means we will not see changes in sat/tpns/EPG records soon.


----------



## HoTat2

Though wouldn't a logical assumption be that D14 will likely integrate into Networks 10 and 11 so Net. 10 will become split into two 16 CONUS xpndr sets like Net. 15 at 103W, with a &quot;99(ca) and (cb)?
And while admittedly more difficult to anticipate, Net. 11 will probably show xpndrs 1-8 as active on 99(s) with numbers 1-6 listed as coming from either D14 or SW-2?

But I don't have any guesses as to how the RDBS band might display in either the tables or the receiver signal strength screens.


----------



## HoTat2

Sorry about the fomat problems with my previous post. Tapatalk is having issues. Will correct the post after I get to a PC.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk

EDIT: Post corrected.

While it surely has its conveniences, Tapatalk can be a pain sometimes. ...


----------



## CraigerM

How will the new satellite handle bad weather especially with HD channels?


----------



## Diana C

CraigerM said:


> How will the new satellite handle bad weather especially with HD channels?


It is unlikely to have any effect. The only possibility would be some locals might get moved around to different spot beams, which MIGHT have an effect on signal, or if DirecTV spaced content out a bit and used the extra bandwidth to improve FEC (error correction). More FEC in the signal will make it slightly more resilient, but probably not so much that you would notice.


----------



## Laxguy

It's equipped with an extra solar pack to increase the power by 200% to get through bad weather.


----------



## CraigerM

Thanks. What HD channels will the D14 carry besides Ultra HD? I was asking the question before about HD and bad weather because didn't DTV say they were eventually going to get rid of the SD channels and have everything in HD? I know HD is more susceptible to rain fade.


----------



## HoTat2

Diana C said:


> It is unlikely to have any effect. The only possibility would be some locals might get moved around to different spot beams, which MIGHT have an effect on signal, or if DirecTV spaced content out a bit and used the extra bandwidth to improve FEC (error correction). More FEC in the signal will make it slightly more resilient, but probably not so much that you would notice.


Yeah;

Don't see how D14's Ka-hi band payload will really perform any different to RF than D12's does.

RDBS band payload may be better against RF because it downlinks on a lower frequency band (17.3-17.7 GHz).

But it's not that much lower than the Ka bands, so I don't know just how much of an improvement over Ka it will actually be.


----------



## longrider

CraigerM said:


> Thanks. What HD channels will the D14 carry besides Ultra HD? I was asking the question before about HD and bad weather because didn't DTV say they were eventually going to get rid of the SD channels and have everything in HD? I know HD is more susceptible to rain fade.


A few points here. First off there is no public information on what channels will be carried on D14. Next, the difference in rain fade is not due to HD or SD but is a result of the frequency bands they are carried on. HD is on KA frequencies and SD is on KU. A HD channel on KU would be just as resistant as an SD channel. Regarding the elimination of SD broadcasts, that is still years away. DirecTV has only taken the very first step of not doing any new SD installs. My guess as to what the future holds is that they will wait a couple years and let churn eliminate a percentage of the SD installs. Then they will go market by market and switch out the remaining SD customers. One good thing I could see with this is that once a market is 100% HD capable they could shut off the SD locals and use the KU transponders for the big 4 HD locals which would help with rain fade


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Though wouldn't a logical assumption be that D14 will likely integrate into Networks 10 and 11 so Net. 10 will become split into two 16 CONUS xpndr sets like Net. 15 at 103W, with a "99(ca) and (cb)?
> And while admittedly more difficult to anticipate, Net. 11 will probably show xpndrs 1-8 as active on 99(s) with numbers 1-6 listed as coming from either D14 or SW-2?
> 
> But I don't have any guesses as to how the RDBS band might display in either the tables or the receiver signal strength screens.


Well, that assumes they keep using SW2 for CONUS locals at all. I don't think they will. D14 provides enough spot beams that it could certainly take over for SW2 and perhaps SW1 as well, and is more bandwidth efficient with its normal sized transponders. SW1/SW2 could be relegated to in orbit spares, or another idea I had is that one might be dedicated to Puerto Rico and allow them to receive a lot more HD. Right now they have spots from SW1/SW2 but not even all the transponders. Since they don't receive the CONUS broadcasts from D10, D11 or D12 that leaves them way down on bandwidth.

There's no reason they couldn't use all 500 Mhz of SW1's Ka hi from 103 for PR. D14 for a beam for PR but I'm not sure if it is a CONUS beam like D15's PR beam or just a spot. If it is just a spot they could dedicate SW2's Ka hi to PR as well. That would be a good job for them in semi-retirement. It would be anyone's guess how that would be treated...would it be another "Net" or still considered some souped up spot beam?

It will be interesting to see if/when the RDBS bands appear in the system tables. Still aren't any current LNBs known to receive that band.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah;
> 
> Don't see how D14's Ka-hi band payload will really perform any different to RF than D12's does.
> 
> RDBS band payload may be better against RF because it downlinks on a lower frequency band (17.3-17.7 GHz).
> 
> But it's not that much lower than the Ka bands, so I don't know just how much of an improvement over Ka it will actually be.


Depending on what Directv does with RDBS in terms of rolloff, modulation and FEC to get a higher bit rate, RDBS may well perform worse in regards to rain fade. If they made receivers automatically switch over to the HD channel if the 4K channel faded, it wouldn't matter in practice. They won't need to use an advanced modulation right away since 4K channels will be slow to appear, but if they ever become very numerous they'll have to make compromises to stretch their bandwidth and fit them all.


----------



## doctor j

_TLE # 4 out for 2014-078A_

_No real change so I haven't posted any data or images_

_doctor j_


----------



## slice1900

longrider said:


> A few points here. First off there is no public information on what channels will be carried on D14. Next, the difference in rain fade is not due to HD or SD but is a result of the frequency bands they are carried on. HD is on KA frequencies and SD is on KU. A HD channel on KU would be just as resistant as an SD channel. Regarding the elimination of SD broadcasts, that is still years away. DirecTV has only taken the very first step of not doing any new SD installs. My guess as to what the future holds is that they will wait a couple years and let churn eliminate a percentage of the SD installs. Then they will go market by market and switch out the remaining SD customers. One good thing I could see with this is that once a market is 100% HD capable they could shut off the SD locals and use the KU transponders for the big 4 HD locals which would help with rain fade


100% agreed. I did a rough count recently and there are about 80 (mostly smaller) DMAs that are already MPEG4 only because that's how they were initiated due to a lack of spot beams on 101 and 119 to cover all DMAs. Other than maybe a few long time customers who don't care about getting their locals from Directv, there would be very few SD customers or SD receivers in those markets since they've been doing MPEG4 only installs in those for several years already.

Whether they do the remaining transition by market, by package or some combination of the above remains to be seen. Instead of going by market, they could easily start pushing customers in premium packages to upgrade to MPEG4 first - they should be the easiest since they spend more money are most, are already HD, and will mostly already have HDTVs. Can't imagine there are too many people subscribing to Premiere that have SD receivers at all, let alone are all SD, that would be an easy migration.

If they were smart, they'd put a crawl on the screen for SD broadcasts of the current/upcoming season of NBALP, NHLCI and MLBEI that next season will be HD only and customers should contact Directv now for a special offer to subscribe to next season's package now and get a free HD upgrade.


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> ...
> 
> It will be interesting to see if/when the RDBS bands appear in the system tables. ...


Will see that soon. We will need obtain LOF(s) of the RDBS LNBF to properly calculate Freqs, as SI tables have listed only IF freqs.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

slice1900 said:


> 100% agreed. I did a rough count recently and there are about 80 (mostly smaller) DMAs that are already MPEG4 only because that's how they were initiated due to a lack of spot beams on 101 and 119 to cover all DMAs. Other than maybe a few long time customers who don't care about getting their locals from Directv, there would be very few SD customers or SD receivers in those markets since they've been doing MPEG4 only installs in those for several years already.
> 
> Whether they do the remaining transition by market, by package or some combination of the above remains to be seen. Instead of going by market, they could easily start pushing customers in premium packages to upgrade to MPEG4 first - they should be the easiest since they spend more money are most, are already HD, and will mostly already have HDTVs. Can't imagine there are too many people subscribing to Premiere that have SD receivers at all, let alone are all SD, that would be an easy migration.
> 
> If they were smart, they'd put a crawl on the screen for SD broadcasts of the current/upcoming season of NBALP, NHLCI and MLBEI that next season will be HD only and customers should contact Directv now for a special offer to subscribe to next season's package now and get a free HD upgrade.


NBALP, NHLCI and MLBEI are mostly RSN remaps so that will not work and local viewers will see the same thing as well.

Maybe NFL ST but will D* pay the costs of the bars to upgrade there in house matrix switchers / analog coax systems?


----------



## lwilli201

JoeTheDragon said:


> NBALP, NHLCI and MLBEI are mostly RSN remaps so that will not work and local viewers will see the same thing as well.
> 
> Maybe NFL ST but will D* pay the costs of the bars to upgrade there in house matrix switchers / analog coax systems?


Would bars be a real problem. Bars pay big bucks for NFLST. I would think that most have HD already. Who wants to watch a game in SD on a 60" TV. I would think that Directv would not install SD equipment in bars anymore. And the bars in the 80 MPEG4 only service area would have already been converted because the local teams telecast will be blacked out on ST, so they would have to use the Local channel. I can see that in the near future the number of remaining SD units will be low enough that it will be cost efficient to upgrade them to HD. In any case the SD sats must be getting close to EOL.


----------



## doctor j

TLE #5 out
No Change
Image is TLE #1 and TLE #5
Exact overlay, so just a fine tuning of data, no manuvers yet, at least as of earlier today

Doctor j


----------



## Gary Toma

slice1900 said:


> ...... I did a rough count recently and there are about 80 (mostly smaller) DMAs that are already MPEG4 only because that's how they were initiated...


Check out the 'Market' tab in the TPN Map. There are 57 DMA's shaded in blue. As explained in the Post #1 boiler-plate text, the blue shading indicates an MPEG4-only DMA. That info is kept current so you don't need to do the homework.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> ...
> 
> There's no reason they couldn't use all 500 Mhz of SW1's Ka hi from 103 for PR. D14 for a beam for PR but I'm not sure if it is a CONUS beam like D15's PR beam or just a spot. If it is just a spot they could dedicate SW2's Ka hi to PR as well. That would be a good job for them in semi-retirement. It would be anyone's guess how that would be treated...would it be another "Net" or still considered some souped up spot beam?
> 
> It will be interesting to see if/when the RDBS bands appear in the system tables. Still aren't any current LNBs known to receive that band.


From the filings, D14 has two fully overlapping LiL spotbeams "B23" and "B24" with one local xpndr assigned per beam for Puerto Rico locals. B23 is LHCP and B24 is RHCP.

Redirected CONUS nationals for PR are also channeled through the local spotbeams. Even CONUS xpndr channels to B23 and odd to B24.

So I don't see how SW-2 could be used to serve PR alongside D14 at 99W, but SW-1 at 103W certainly could.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

I'm puzzled that all of the TLEs from Celestrak place all four items at over 35600km. I think I need to seek a second opinion on whether the software I'm using, Gpredict, is interpreting correctly.

Someone is keenly interested in 078B to be cranking out the TLEs so rapidly.

2014-078A
1 40332U 14078A 14341.29371465 .00000028 00000-0 00000+0 0 48
2 40332 6.0992 209.0550 7281023 179.6780 345.3323 2.28526911 01
2014-078B
1 40333U 14078B 14341.58140338 .00000016 00000-0 00000+0 0 30
2 40333 6.0153 210.5262 7284273 178.3541 220.7088 2.28017573 13
2014-078C
1 40334U 14078C 14341.30473810 .00000027 00000-0 00000+0 0 48
2 40334 6.0045 210.6291 7284182 178.1707 353.3913 2.27874099 00
2014-078D
1 40335U 14078D 14341.31097073 .00000027 00000-0 00000+0 0 32
2 40335 6.0009 210.6716 7284322 178.1260 358.2822 2.27728322 03


----------



## JosephB

JoeTheDragon said:


> NBALP, NHLCI and MLBEI are mostly RSN remaps so that will not work and local viewers will see the same thing as well.
> 
> Maybe NFL ST but will D* pay the costs of the bars to upgrade there in house matrix switchers / analog coax systems?


You could still use HD receivers in an SD situation. Just downconvert and use SD outputs from the boxes.


----------



## HoTat2

JosephB said:


> You could still use HD receivers in an SD situation. Just downconvert and use SD outputs from the boxes.


Still not sure how this would work,

What ... when the games are via RSN remaps DIRECTV would temporarily turn off the SD feeds of RSNs when broadcasting professional games that are part of sports packages, then resume them after they're over?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

Gary Toma said:


> Check out the 'Market' tab in the TPN Map. There are 57 DMA's shaded in blue. As explained in the Post #1 boiler-plate text, the blue shading indicates an MPEG4-only DMA. That info is kept current so you don't need to do the homework.


I'm not sure that's accurate. For instance Abilene isn't shaded in blue, I guess because it has one PBS virtual coming from 101. However, that would have to be considered an MPEG4 market by Directv, because they aren't going to install SD receivers that couldn't get any locals except for PBS.

When I did my count I included cases like Abilene in my count, which is why it differs from yours


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Still not sure how this would work,
> 
> What ... when the games are via RSN remaps DIRECTV would temporarily turn off the SD feeds of RSNs when broadcasting professional games that are part of sports packages, then resume them after they're over?


You guys are correct about the RSN remaps, I hadn't thought about that aspect. They wouldn't be able to use those to push MPEG4. NFLST has a lot of subscribers, and depending how many of them may still have SD receivers active on their account it might not be practical to do it in fall 2015.

I wouldn't worry about commercial accounts. Any bars/restaurants subscribing to NFLST in SD could be upgraded to HD and continue to use the composite output on the HD receiver. If they're using some sort of SD matrix/modulator system it would continue to work with HD receivers just fine.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> Will see that soon. We will need obtain LOF(s) of the RDBS LNBF to properly calculate Freqs, as SI tables have listed only IF freqs.


Is there a post or link somewhere that could explain in more detail how this works, i.e. format of the tables, how different values refer to the different polarities, if there are numbers or some sort of index values provided for center frequencies of the desired transponder, etc?

I figure it has to work something like this. When you change a channel to say '666' on your receiver, the receiver consults tables it has downloaded from the satellite to convert that into which of the four polarities (5 if you include 95*) to select and what the center frequency is of the desired transponder. Based on the dish type you have selected in satellite setup, of course. It either uses that directly to communicate with the LNB/multiswitch to select the correct polarity if you're in legacy mode, or communicates that info to the SWM so can place the desired transponder on the allocated SWM channel. The tuner would use the IF frequency in legacy mode as the center frequency, or use your SWM channel's center frequency in SWM mode.

Depending on the format, we might not need the LO frequency(s) for RDBS, it might be possible to infer what they've done. For instance, if they fit the RDBS bands in by entirely eliminating the 200 MHz guard bands (which they could easily do if the LNB is essentially feedhorns connected to LNAs that input to the ADCs of a chip that does all the filtering and mixing digitally) it would be easy to infer they've done this by the fact there would be only four polarities to choose from but the IF frequencies listed in the SI tables would continue to stay within the 250 - 2150 MHz range.


----------



## P Smith

SI tables has only IF freqs as I mentined, plus IF for BBC setup and its inverted values, SWIM control include a conversion metadata about sat-lnbf-lof-polarity-etc to swim cmds. So knowing what type of LNBF during setup, it will give IRD correct LOFs for calculations.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> SI tables has only IF freqs as I mentined, plus IF for BBC setup and its inverted values, SWIM control include a conversion metadata about sat-lnbf-lof-polarity-etc to swim cmds. So knowing what type of LNBF during setup, it will give IRD correct LOFs for calculations.


If the SI tables only have IF frequencies, how does the receiver know what polarity to select to get a desired satellite when in legacy mode? This information must come from somewhere else to allow the receiver to determine the desired polarity, either it is directly contained in the information received from the satellite, or information received from the satellite is matched with information in the receiver's firmware that allows it to deduce the correct polarity. For example, given the Net number and knowing whether the transponder number is odd or even would allow the IRD to determine the polarity it requires.

This is the same information the SWM will require to be able to select the transponder that contains the channel the IRD wants. i.e. if I want to watch channel 206 (ESPNHD - Net 10/D11/99c tpn 13) it will need to tell the SWM to provide the transponder with IF center frequency 520 MHz from 13v no tone polarity. The actual format of the command the IRD sends the SWM doesn't matter, what matters is that's what the SWM will do in response to that command. The SWM chip corresponding to the channel assigned to the IRD contains a 6x4 multiswitch that selects the proper polarity, and a VCO inputs to a mixer to change the IF frequency from 520 MHz to the center frequency of the assigned SWM channel.

If the receiver is legacy it needs the same information to select the polarity and tune the channel, though as you say it is a bit more complicated since this example would involve using an undocumented DiSEqC command to activate the BBC's 2400 MHz LO. Then the IRD's tuner would look for an inverted transponder at 1880 MHz.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/directv-4k-bird-takes-flight/386100

DirecTV 4K Bird Takes Flight DirecTV-14 Satellite Expected To Begin Operations in Q2 2015 12/07/2014 11:00 AM Eastern










Following a brief weather-induced delay, an Arianespace rocket containing a new satellite that will help to pave DirecTV's 4K/Ultra HD future launched successfully Saturday afternoon from the European Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana.

The Ariane 5 launch vehicle delivered the DirecTV-14 and GSAT-16 (for the Indian Space Research Organisation) satellites. A video of the launch is available here.

DirecTV said controllers at the ground station at Hassan, India, made contact with its new satellite 28 minutes into the launch and confirmed that all systems are functioning properly. DirecTV-14 is expected to begin operations in the early second quarter of 2015...


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> If the SI tables only have IF frequencies, how does the receiver know what polarity to select to get a desired satellite when in legacy mode? .


Yes, you're right (I omitted it) - there are more: modulation, FEC, polarity, pilot flag, inversion flag, etc. But no Ku/Ka freqs.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> Yes, you're right (I omitted it) - there are more: modulation, FEC, polarity, pilot flag, inversion flag, etc. But no Ku/Ka freqs.


The IRD doesn't care about Ka/Ku frequencies. It cares about IF frequencies, or some information that allows it to determine the IF frequencies (i.e. it could be determined from the Net number and transponder number)


----------



## P Smith

telling me that after I did explain it to you .. duh !


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Is there a post or link somewhere that could explain in more detail how this works, i.e. format of the tables, how different values refer to the different polarities, if there are numbers or some sort of index values provided for center frequencies of the desired transponder, etc?
> ....


Though somewhat dated, there actually was some good info. on this from P. Smith posted on camera3.org. But its been taken down off that site for some reason.

Wish I'd made notes from it at the time... 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## georule

Congrats to Arianespace and DirecTV. I think I'll wait a couple more months before congratulating Loral, which I certainly hope to do.


----------



## P Smith

I would wait for positive outcome of IOT and D-14 taking workspot before sing dithyrambs to any company but AS


----------



## Laxguy

Yes, an awesome launch! And that's an appropriate use of that overworked adjective.


----------



## georule

P Smith said:


> I would wait for positive outcome of IOT and D-14 taking workspot before sing dithyrambs to any company but AS


DirecTV has a whole host of risks to negotiate, it's true, but they just put several of the larger ones behind them successfully, and that's still worth a little pat on the back, IMO.


----------



## doctor j

TLE #6 Perigee raised almost halfway.
Inclination reduced to 1 degree

Images are TLE #1 in Blue and TLE #6 in Yellow

10 OBJECT-A
Lon 73.7386° W
Lat 0.9456° N
Alt (km) 18 571.570
Azm 156.6°
Elv 44.8°
RA 22h 26m 31s
Decl -8° 51' 33"
Range (km) 20 038.037
RRt (km/s) -0.765
Vel (km/s) 4.427
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 329.8° (234)
TA 304.5°
Orbit # 4
Name 0 OBJECT-A
NORAD # 40332
COSPAR designator 2014-078-A 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-08 18:18:33
Orbit # at Epoch 4
Inclination 1.056
RA of A. Node 217.168
Eccentricity 0.3064677
Argument of Perigee 171.666
Revs per day 1.49799811
Period 16h 01m 16s (961.27 min)
Semi-major axis 32 265 km
Perigee x Apogee 15 998 x 35 775 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 247.863
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 6 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A

Doctor j


----------



## shy007

I know this has been asked but I can't find it anywhere. How many transponders (Conus) will this satellite have? Is it still about 6 channels per transponder? I see this unit has spot beam also, will local sub channels get added?


----------



## HoTat2

shy007 said:


> I know this has been asked but I can't find it anywhere. How many transponders (Conus) will this satellite have? Is it still about 6 channels per transponder? I see this unit has spot beam also, will local sub channels get added?


1) 16 CONUS

2) Yes, 5-6 for CONUS, Spotbeams can use higher channel loadings.

3) Doubtful, since D14's spotbeams are designed to serve new local markets. Not add capacity to existing ones that are presently served.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> From the filings, D14 has two fully overlapping LiL spotbeams "B23" and "B24" with one local xpndr assigned per beam for Puerto Rico locals. B23 is LHCP and B24 is RHCP.
> 
> Redirected CONUS nationals for PR are also channeled through the local spotbeams. Even CONUS xpndr channels to B23 and odd to B24.
> 
> So I don't see how SW-2 could be used to serve PR alongside D14 at 99W, but SW-1 at 103W certainly could.


So D14 will provide 16 tpns CONUS + PR Ka hi. If D15 took over CONUS Ka lo from D10, it would cover PR, allowing SW1 to provide as many as 16 tpns of Ka hi for PR. That would allow up to 46 MPEG4 tpns - more than the 44 (39 in use) the US currently has.

On the other hand, if D15 took over Ka hi from D12 that would be 32 tpns for PR, which would be more than enough for Directv to offer comparable HD packages to the states if there are contractual restrictions on what they can offer (i.e. sports rights and such covering only states and not territories) If so, both Spaceways would be forced into semi-retirement unless there are Ka hi spotbeam coverage gaps from D12 & D14 they can still exploit here and there.

The FCC filing for the new orbital locations at 103 mention only D10, D12 and D15's new locations, not SW1 - though to be fair, it wouldn't need to be moved from its current location based on the locations planned for those three.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> So D14 will provide 16 tpns CONUS + PR Ka hi. If D15 took over CONUS Ka lo from D10, it would cover PR, allowing SW1 to provide as many as 16 tpns of Ka hi for PR. That would allow up to 46 MPEG4 tpns - more than the 44 (39 in use) the US currently has.
> 
> On the other hand, if D15 took over Ka hi from D12 that would be 32 tpns for PR, which would be more than enough for Directv to offer comparable HD packages to the states if there are contractual restrictions on what they can offer (i.e. sports rights and such covering only states and not territories) If so, both Spaceways would be forced into semi-retirement unless there are Ka hi spotbeam coverage gaps from D12 & D14 they can still exploit here and there.
> 
> The FCC filing for the new orbital locations at 103 mention only D10, D12 and D15's new locations, not SW1 - though to be fair, it wouldn't need to be moved from its current location based on the locations planned for those three.


What I question is that with all the redirected CONUS nationals going to PR from D14 and 15 and just two local spotbeam xpndrs from D14. Is PR going to be changing their programming to mostly English from the US?

All the Spanish channels they currently receive via SW1 and 2, what's going to happen to them?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> What I question is that with all the redirected CONUS nationals going to PR from D14 and 15 and just two local spotbeam xpndrs from D14. Is PR going to be changing their programming to mostly English from the US?
> 
> All the Spanish channels they currently receive via SW1 and 2, what's going to happen to them?


Couldn't Directv carry both English and Spanish audio where available, and only one or the other where not? There are plenty of Spanish speakers in the US who would prefer channels in Spanish where possible, and surely plenty of English speakers in PR who would enjoy a wider variety of programming that is only available with English audio.


----------



## doctor j

Interesting?
Second Morning with NO updated TLE for OBJECT A 2014-078
Manuvers started on Monday12/8/2014
Confirmed by SSL : http://sslmda.com/html/pressreleases/pr20141208.html

TLE #6 showed the first step, but Directv seems to have influence to not "update" TLE until manuvers complete or nearly so.
This happened during the D10,11,12 launches also. (days of silence then flurries after the fact)
I'm certain their argument is "proprietary" in how they optimized orbital changes with minimal energy expenditures.

Just Sayin

Doctor j


----------



## fleckrj

A lot of maneuvers, especially during the early days, are designed more to calibrate the thrusters than they are to actually change the orbit to an appreciable extent. Also, it is not how quickly a satellite can achieve its intended orbit, but whether it achieved its orbit with the fuel consumption that was intended that counts. 

I know folks who are engineers in navigation and guidance at NASA. A few years ago, they parked a satellite more quickly than the design allowed, and while it was in its correct orbit and on station, it had not burned enough fuel before it reached its station. As a result, the excess fuel sloshed around and caused the satellite to rock back and forth for some time. Getting the satellite into station sooner was of no benefit, because the satellite was not useful until it stopped rocking. Even though there are baffles in the fuel tanks, there is little friction in space, and it takes a long time for the fuel and satellite to settle down. Had they burned the anticipated amount of fuel before achieving station, the mass of the remaining fuel would not have been enough to cause the satellite to rock. They got high marks for efficiency, but the satellite did not come on line any sooner.


----------



## P Smith

For these who are in the "woods" all the maneuvres' data analyzing on-line, they are monitoring the objects very closely. Would it be "proprietary" or not. You cannot hide,to many "eyes" looking up...


----------



## HoTat2

fleckrj said:


> A lot of maneuvers, especially during the early days, are designed more to calibrate the thrusters than they are to actually change the orbit to an appreciable extent. Also, it is not how quickly a satellite can achieve its intended orbit, but whether it achieved its orbit with the fuel consumption that was intended that counts.
> 
> I know folks who are engineers in navigation and guidance at NASA. A few years ago, they parked a satellite more quickly than the design allowed, and while it was in its correct orbit and on station, it had not burned enough fuel before it reached its station. As a result, the excess fuel sloshed around and caused the satellite to rock back and forth for some time. Getting the satellite into station sooner was of no benefit, because the satellite was not useful until it stopped rocking. Even though there are baffles in the fuel tanks, there is little friction in space, and it takes a long time for the fuel and satellite to settle down. Had they burned the anticipated amount of fuel before achieving station, the mass of the remaining fuel would not have been enough to cause the satellite to rock. They got high marks for efficiency, but the satellite did not come on line any sooner.


That's interesting,

Though I thought pressurization in the fuel tanks would prevent such sloshing of the liquid propellants even if the levels were higher than aticipated when on station.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

Since Directv filed to have it at 76W "no sooner than" Dec. 14, and isn't scheduled to arrive at 99 until Feb. 5th, they can afford to take their time since they only have four weeks of testing to do and about 8 weeks in which to do it along with getting to 76* and 99*.


----------



## lwilli201

When do the solar panels deploy. The /Loral LS-1300 has had solar panel deployment failures in the past.


----------



## KyL416

slice1900 said:


> Couldn't Directv carry both English and Spanish audio where available, and only one or the other where not?


You'll see less and less of that in the future. With the disability act stations are starting to provide descriptive audio for the blind instead of Spanish audio on their SAP feed.


----------



## slice1900

KyL416 said:


> You'll see less and less of that in the future. With the disability act stations are starting to provide descriptive audio for the blind instead of Spanish audio on their SAP feed.


Like CC, SAP is supported by TVs via their tuner, it isn't carried via HDMI. So similar to how cable/satellite set tops have to implement CC themselves, they'll have to implement some form of SAP, but wouldn't be limited to only one alternative audio track (assuming SAP is...I take it from your post that that it is)

Of course, it all depends on what is available from the broadcaster, but all the channels that Directv currently carries in PR with a Spanish audio track are unlikely to be dropped. Some of it is totally different (i.e. ESPN Desportes) but I'm sure a lot of it is the same. I don't know exactly how much of it has a separate audio track though - for example is "TNT HD Puerto Rico" in English there, or Spanish? I have no idea...

I figure there must be some reason Directv equipped D14 & D15 with transponders that include PR along with CONUS/AK/HI. If not to share programming with the US, why bother?


----------



## cforrest

lwilli201 said:


> When do the solar panels deploy. The /Loral LS-1300 has had solar panel deployment failures in the past.


Per this PR looks like they deployed as scheduled:

http://sslmda.com/html/pressreleases/pr20141208.html


----------



## HarleyD

Seeing a new TLE (#7) on Celestrak...

2014-078A 
1 40332U 14078A 14343.18355115 -.00000112 00000-0 00000+0 0 70
2 40332 1.0588 217.1846 3064658 171.6674 114.7099 1.49799135 42


I don't read these as well as many, but it looks like it is largely unchanged.


----------



## doctor j

10 OBJECT A_7
Lon 39.3509° E
Lat 0.9813° N
Alt (km) 19 110.630
Azm 67.1°
Elv -39.9°
RA 22h 25m 27s
Decl -6° 02' 52"
Range (km) 29 108.077
RRt (km/s) -0.619
Vel (km/s) 4.350
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 326.3° (231)
TA 299.0°
Orbit # 7
Name 0 OBJECT A_7
NORAD # 40332
COSPAR designator 2014-078-A 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-09 04:24:18
Orbit # at Epoch 4
Inclination 1.059
RA of A. Node 217.185
Eccentricity 0.3064658
Argument of Perigee 171.667
Revs per day 1.49799135
Period 16h 01m 17s (961.28 min)
Semi-major axis 32 265 km
Perigee x Apogee 15 999 x 35 775 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 114.710
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 7 / 2 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A


NO Change
JSat orbits TLE6 vs TLE7 overlay w/o any visible difference

Will be out of town for 4 days, may have difficulty in updating images but will try

Doctor j


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> Though I thought pressurization in the fuel tanks would prevent such sloshing of the liquid propellants even if the levels were higher than aticipated when on station.


Pressurizing MAY prevent vaporizing (or in some applications, foaming), but it doesn't have any kind of calming effect on interia. Gases and fuel vapor migrate to where the fuel isn't as they are much lighter than the liquid fuel.

I think it is more an issue of mass versus the problem of sloshing as a fuller tank sloshes less. Topped off, the CG of the fuel mass has nowhere to go and it is only as the tank empties that the load can shift.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Pressurizing MAY prevent vaporizing (or in some applications, foaming), but it doesn't have any kind of calming effect on interia. *Gases and fuel vapor migrate to where the fuel isn't as they are much lighter than the liquid fuel.*
> 
> I think it is more an issue of mass versus the problem of sloshing as a fuller tank sloshes less. Topped off, the CG of the fuel mass has nowhere to go and it is only as the tank empties that the load can shift.


That doesn't happen in zero-G (nothing is "lighter" that anything else when everything weighs nothing). You do still have mass and inertia, however. The fuel in the NASA example didn't exactly "slosh," it was more like a bounce or ricochet (it was bouncing off the walls of the fuel tank with whatever inertia the last thrust gave it).

This is why fire is so dangerous in zero-G - it burns in all directions at once.


----------



## bakers12

I just found these TLEs on Space-track.org:

0 GSAT 16
1 40332U 14078A 14343.18355115 -.00000112 00000-0 00000+0 0 70
2 40332 001.0588 217.1846 3064658 171.6674 114.7099 01.49799135 42
0 DIRECTV 14
1 40333U 14078B 14345.36875927 -.00000110 00000-0 00000+0 0 91
2 40333 001.0781 211.6037 2492506 177.9718 060.5640 01.39971694 77
DirecTV 14 is the satellite formerly listed as "Object B."


----------



## doctor j

bakers12 said:


> I just found these TLEs on Space-track.org:
> 
> 0 GSAT 16
> 1 40332U 14078A 14343.18355115 -.00000112 00000-0 00000+0 0 70
> 2 40332 001.0588 217.1846 3064658 171.6674 114.7099 01.49799135 42
> 0 DIRECTV 14
> 1 40333U 14078B 14345.36875927 -.00000110 00000-0 00000+0 0 91
> 2 40333 001.0781 211.6037 2492506 177.9718 060.5640 01.39971694 77
> DirecTV 14 is the satellite formerly listed as "Object B."
> 
> FOILED!!
> Just Found it
> 
> Object A is GSAT the 2nd satellite not like the Labeling of VA220 Intelsat-30
> Fortunately keeping all the TLE's from VA 221 2014-078
> 
> Will Adjust
> 
> Also Directv_14_10 TLE just out and NEAR GEO orbit
> images to follow
> 
> Sorry about my assumption , You know what you get if you take away U & ME
> 
> Doctor j


----------



## doctor j

TLE #10

0 DIRECTV 14_10
Lon 88.8970° W
Lat 0.0339° N
Alt (km) 35 375.280
Azm 183.8°
Elv 51.0°
RA 17h 44m 21s
Decl -5° 26' 20"
Range (km) 36 600.477
RRt (km/s) -0.058
Vel (km/s) 3.070
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 237.2° (168)
TA 235.0°
Orbit # 8
Name 0 DIRECTV 14_10
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-11 16:26:51
Orbit # at Epoch 8
Inclination 0.096
RA of A. Node 231.558
*Eccentricity 0.0228654*
Argument of Perigee 159.794
Revs per day 1.03717672
Period 23h 08m 23s (1388.38 min)
Semi-major axis 41 226 km
*Perigee x Apogee 33 905 x 35 790 km*
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 207.973
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 10 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A

Doctor j


----------



## doctor j

Well here's a composite
Of the 10 THE's to OBJECT B *NOW* known as DIRECTV14 , significant changes to Orbit #1/TLE #1 occured in
TLEs 5,6 & 10

Here's a snapshot Gold TLE #1, Yellow TLE #5 , White TLE #6 , and Green latest TLE #10

Doctor j


----------



## longrider

Out of curiosity what do those cones mean? I am guessing it is the point in orbit the satellite is at when the TLE was created?


----------



## HoTat2

longrider said:


> Out of curiosity what do those cones mean? I am guessing it is the point in orbit the satellite is at when the TLE was created?


And also out of curiosity, 

What is the "MA," the "RA" the "TA" and the "RRt" figures mean in the list of orbital elements?

Sorry for any ignorance here, and a Google search on them hasn't been much help.


----------



## cypherx

Wow that is interesting stuff. How do you get all of that information? Is it from that website posted earlier or do you have access to a rig that can pull telemetry data (like a software defined radio setup in the radio astronomy bands tuned to this bird)?


----------



## Ken984

cypherx said:


> Wow that is interesting stuff. How do you get all of that information? Is it from that website posted earlier or do you have access to a rig that can pull telemetry data (like a software defined radio setup in the radio astronomy bands tuned to this bird)?


You need some software to enter the TLE into. It will calculate all those figures for you. I get the TLE from Space-Track and use Orbitron software to do the calculations. Its all free and kind of cool to play around with.


----------



## eec_676

In PR we had the same channels that we see on the states. For example, TNT had primary language in English and SAP audio in Spanish if available. If the channel don't had SAP audio the language its in English. We also had some Spanish language channel like ESPN Deportes, and we had for example, Discovery Channel one channel in English (US) and other in Spanish ( Latin American Channel)


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## Ken984

TLE 11 is out. Very similar to TLE 10.

DIRECTV 14
Lon 76.9233° W
Lat 0.0021° N
Alt (km) 35 634.420
Azm 274.5°
Elv -11.8°
RA 15h 56m 07s
Decl -6° 47' 41"
Range (km) 42 856.744
RRt (km/s) -0.037
Vel (km/s) 3.051
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 214.2° (152)
TA 212.7°
Orbit # 8
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Oph
2Sun
Azm 248.1°
Elv -12.6°
RA 17h 18m 50s
Decl -23° 05' 59"
Lon 61.4038° W
Lat 23.0978° S
Range (km) 147 285 755
Constellation Oph
3Moon
Azm 9.6°
Elv -29.4°
RA 10h 04m 40s
Decl 7° 07' 48"
Lon 169.8820° W
Lat 7.9088° N
Range (km) 408 473
Illum 66%
Phase Last quarter
Constellation Leo


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> That doesn't happen in zero-G (nothing is "lighter" that anything else when everything weighs nothing).


I used the term "lighter" as an expression of density as opposed to one of weight.


> The fuel in the NASA example didn't exactly "slosh," it was more like a bounce or ricochet (it was bouncing off the walls of the fuel tank with whatever inertia the last thrust gave it).


But the more fuel there is, the less it's CG changes because there's less space available for the mass to shift to. The concept of a load shift on a mostly full tank is not supported by physics. There is considerably more "action" in a tank that is more empty.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> I used the term "lighter" as an expression of density as opposed to one of weight.But the more fuel there is, the less it's CG changes because there's less space available for the mass to shift to. The concept of a load shift on a mostly full tank is not supported by physics. There is considerably more "action" in a tank that is more empty.


"Thinner" or "thicker" are usually the colloquial terms for describing density.

Your center of gravity observation is true if the tank is nearly full, but without data we can't know what the mass of the full fuel load was, what the targeted mass was supposed to be upon arrival on station or the actual final fuel mass. Since it WAS reported as a problem, I think it is not TOO big a stretch to assume that the fuel tank was NOT full or "nearly full" and that fuel movement WAS expected. Based on that assumption the increased mass of the remaining fuel caused the center of mass of the entire spacecraft to "wander" more than expected, thus causing issues for the thruster burns that had been pre-calculated based upon the predicted fuel mass.


----------



## fleckrj

harsh said:


> But the more fuel there is, the less it's CG changes because there's less space available for the mass to shift to. The concept of a load shift on a mostly full tank is not supported by physics. There is considerably more "action" in a tank that is more empty.


I am not sure CG is as important as momentum when there is no gravity. While it is true, if you are talking about a nearly full tank, that the CG does not change much, but the mass is large and the velocity with which the mass hits the wall of the tank should not be dependent on the distance the mass traveled. Force is mass x velocity. Distance traveled has no bearing.

If the tank is nearly empty, although the fuel can move farther, the mass is too small to be meaningful either on CG or on the force at which it hits the wall of the tank. If the design spec called for the tank to be less than 10% full, and it was 40% full, that will be a large difference in mass, and although the mass does not have as far to travel, it will still have an impact when it hits the wall of the tank.


----------



## bakers12

TLE 12 is out now.

DIRECTV 14
1 40333U 14078B 14346.74719025 -.00000244 00000-0 00000+0 0 122
2 40333 000.0913 245.3739 0003147 168.1762 220.2560 01.00317871 80
The orbit is nearly circular, with an eccentricity of only 0.0003147, but the inclination is 0.091 degrees, so it's not quite parked yet. The current longitude is 76.5614° W and drifting slightly to the East.

DIRECTV 14
*Lon 76.5614° W*
Lat 0.0797° N
Alt (km) 35 773.410
Azm 163.1°
Elv 40.4°
RA 21h 36m 42s
Decl -6° 20' 05"
Range (km) 37 733.304
RRt (km/s) -0.001
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 269.2° (191)
TA 269.2°
Orbit # 8
Mag (illum) ? (29%)
Constellation Aqr
Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-12 17:55:57
Orbit # at Epoch 8
*Inclination 0.091*
RA of A. Node 245.374
*Eccentricity 0.0003147*
Argument of Perigee 168.176
Revs per day 1.00317871
Period 23h 55m 26s (1435.43 min)
Semi-major axis 42 152 km
*Perigee x Apogee 35 760 x 35 787 km*
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 220.256
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 12 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A


----------



## harsh

The importance of enter of gravity was evidenced by the CG experiments that were done after fueling. Force exerted at other than the CG introduces spin.


----------



## Renard

Follow Directv 14 and others in real time here.

http://www.n2yo.com/?s=40333


----------



## bakers12

TLE 13 was just posted. The orbit is almost circular with a slight inclination and slight drift toward the East.


1 40333U 14078B 14347.17756877 -.00000244 00000-0 00000+0 0 137
2 40333 000.0826 246.3401 0003700 165.7565 017.1582 01.00325668 90
DIRECTV 14
Lon 76.3965° W
Lat 0.0472° S
Alt (km) 35 764.210
Azm 162.9°
Elv 40.2°
RA 07h 51m 58s
Decl -6° 28' 35"
Range (km) 37 737.692
RRt (km/s) 0.001
Vel (km/s) 3.076
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 64.4° (46)
TA 64.5°
Orbit # 9
Mag (illum) ? (87%)
Constellation Mon
Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-13 04:15:41
Orbit # at Epoch 9
Inclination 0.083
RA of A. Node 246.340
Eccentricity 0.0003700
Argument of Perigee 165.756
Revs per day 1.00325668
Period 23h 55m 19s (1435.32 min)
Semi-major axis 42 150 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 756 x 35 787 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 17.158
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 13 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A


----------



## bakers12

TLE 14 is available. It's similar to TLE 13, with slightly less inclination.


Code:


 DIRECTV 14
1 40333U 14078B   14348.07149785 -.00000242  00000-0  00000+0 0   140
2 40333 000.0794 246.2080 0003590 164.4746 341.4313 01.00323496   104


----------



## HarleyD

There haven't been sgnificant changes for a few days now. Slight inclination but holding more or less at 76W.

Since they are supposed to arrive at GEO at 76W no sooner than 12/14 it seems like they've been biding their time. Technically not at their designated station but just a small maneuver away from there. Standing just outside the door so to speak.


----------



## bakers12

TLE 15 was released and was basically the same as the last two. I put the TLE into Orbitron and ran simulation mode. In this orbit, Orbitron shows that at about 8:00 AM CST tomorrow, DirecTV 14 will be at apogee, located at 76.0356° W and 0.0455° S.

I'm no rocket scientist, but that seems like a good time for the small maneuver they will need.


----------



## yosoyellobo

doctor j said:


> Well here's a composite
> Of the 10 THE's to OBJECT B *NOW* known as DIRECTV14 , significant changes to Orbit #1/TLE #1 occured in
> TLEs 5,6 & 10
> 
> Here's a snapshot Gold TLE #1, Yellow TLE #5 , White TLE #6 , and Green latest TLE #10
> 
> Doctor j


Could you post the lastest snapshot. Thanks.


----------



## Ken984

TLE 16 is out.
Not too much change. still not quite parked.
Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-15 08:39:19
Orbit # at Epoch 11
Inclination 0.061
RA of A. Node 252.391
Eccentricity 0.0003449
Argument of Perigee 151.799
Revs per day 1.00321066
Period 23h 55m 23s (1435.38 min)
Semi-major axis 42 151 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 758 x 35 787 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 93.510
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 16 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary


----------



## cypherx

What does TLE stand for?


----------



## bobnielsen

Two line element

Post 2103 has a TLE


----------



## bakers12

There are also 3LE's, three line elements, which are the same as TLE's with the satellite name added.


0 DIRECTV 14
1 40333U 14078B 14349.36064395 -.00000240 00000-0 00000+0 0 166
2 40333 000.0607 252.3912 0003449 151.7990 093.5096 01.00321066 117


I was retrieving data in the 3LE format until OBJECT-A and OBJECT-B were given their more useful names.


----------



## bakers12

1 40333U 14078B 14349.36064395 -.00000240 00000-0 00000+0 0 177
2 40333 000.0625 250.3338 0003487 154.1214 093.2448 01.00321218 112


TLE 17 was just posted and it's very similar to the last few. The date/time stamp is the same as TLE 16, though, so this is just a correction.


----------



## doctor j

Been out of town.
Sorry about slacking off 
TLE #17
Composite PIX of TLE 1,5,6,10 and now 17

The outside Blue circle is the latest.
You can see the last few changes are very minor. Orbit is circular now. Eccentricity down to the fourth decimal place.

Name 0 DIRECTV 14_17
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-15 08:39:19
Orbit # at Epoch 11
Inclination 0.062
RA of A. Node 250.334
Eccentricity 0.0003487
Argument of Perigee 154.121
Revs per day 1.00321218
Period 23h 55m 23s (1435.38 min)
Semi-major axis 42 151 km
*Perigee x Apogee 35 758 x 35 787 km*
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 93.245
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 17 / 1 day(s)

Doctor j


----------



## bakers12

I expect that D14 is already parked, but we just don't have the TLE yet. Using the latest TLE, Orbitron says that D14 has already drifted past its target, which I really doubt.

Of course, as I've stated before, I'm no rocket scientist.


----------



## HoTat2

bakers12 said:


> I expect that D14 is already parked, but we just don't have the TLE yet. Using the latest TLE, Orbitron says that D14 has already drifted past its target, which I really doubt.
> 
> Of course, as I've stated before, I'm no rocket scientist.


Yeah...

The problem is in the STA filings, while DIRECTV gave a "no earlier than" date of 12/14 for the arrival of the satellite at 76W, there is not a "no later than" date given.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

They have 30 days of testing scheduled, and arrival at 99 "no earlier than" 2/4. So they don't have to be in any hurry to park and commence testing - maybe they plan to wait until the new year to begin testing so it doesn't mess with holiday plans


----------



## cypherx

Are the solar panels deployed yet or does it park first?


----------



## bakers12

The solar panels deployed a while ago. See post #2081.


----------



## HoTat2

bakers12 said:


> The solar panels deployed a while ago. See post #2081.


Yep,

I would think considering that since all during the early orbit and raising phase the satellite needs some level of electrical power for TT&C and other systems, at least one or both of the solar panels would have to be extended early on following insertion into GTO.

Just can't rely on pre-charging of the batteries prior to launch to power the necessary systems thoughout the entire launch and orbit raising.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## cypherx

Ok I wasn't sure how much that would alter the maneuverability of it and wasn't sure if there was enough battery power calculated to get it parked first.

Really cool progress. Hopefully all the testing goes well. I would want to try to bounce a signal off it if I were DirecTV right before Christmas at least, because if it works thats a great Christmas present. The sense of accomplishment that everyone pulled through and all the fun can begin right after the holidays.


----------



## bakers12

TLE 18 is available now. DirecTV14 looks like it's parked.


1 40333U 14078B 14351.32181789 -.00000233 00000-0 00000+0 0 186
2 40333 000.0670 263.4008 0000903 161.7377 060.5687 01.00270208 131

DIRECTV 14
Lon 76.0310° W
Lat 0.0342° S
Alt (km) 35 790.360
Azm 162.3°
Elv 40.1°
RA 16h 53m 55s
Decl -6° 27' 23"
Range (km) 37 769.539
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.074
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 186.9° (132)
TA 186.9°
Orbit # 13
Mag (illum) ? (5%)
Constellation Oph

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-17 07:43:25
Orbit # at Epoch 13
Inclination 0.067
RA of A. Node 263.401
Eccentricity 0.0000903
Argument of Perigee 161.738
Revs per day 1.00270208
Period 23h 56m 07s (1436.12 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 783 x 35 791 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 60.569
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 18 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A


----------



## Ken984

TLE 19 is out.
Eccentricity is down some. Orbit is only 5Km from being a "perfect" circle.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-18 02:24:17
Orbit # at Epoch 14
Inclination 0.060
RA of A. Node 258.412
Eccentricity 0.0000617
Argument of Perigee 166.516
Revs per day 1.00272722
Period 23h 56m 05s (1436.8 min)
Semi-major axis 42 164 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 784 x 35 789 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 341.773
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 19 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary


----------



## harsh

cypherx said:


> Ok I wasn't sure how much that would alter the maneuverability of it and wasn't sure if there was enough battery power calculated to get it parked first.


The satellite will spend all of its useful life (and probably all of its graveyard life) with the panels deployed, so the sooner, the better.

The twisting moments change when the panels are extended but the only other considerable force is solar pressure. Think about how much the panels weigh in comparison to the bus proper.


----------



## Ken984

TLE 20 is out. Eccentricity and inclination are down slightly.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-18 06:39:05
Orbit # at Epoch 14
Inclination 0.059
RA of A. Node 256.439
Eccentricity 0.0000593
Argument of Perigee 169.558
Revs per day 1.00273761
Period 23h 56m 04s (1436.7 min)
Semi-major axis 42 164 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 784 x 35 789 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 44.583
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 20 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary


1DIRECTV 14
Lon 76.0160° W
Lat 0.0586° N
Alt (km) 35 784.510
Azm 273.8°
Elv -11.2°
RA 23h 45m 18s
Decl -6° 43' 32"
Range (km) 42 940.782
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 295.5° (209)
TA 295.5°
Orbit # 14
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Aqr
2Sun
Azm 17.2°
Elv -59.5°
RA 17h 46m 44s
Decl -23° 24' 04"
Lon 170.8106° W
Lat 23.3999° S
Range (km) 147 195 582
Constellation Sgr
3Moon
Azm 65.3°
Elv -35.7°
RA 15h 04m 37s
Decl -15° 11' 02"
Lon 148.3322° E
Lat 14.5524° S
Range (km) 388 216
Illum 12%
Phase Waning crescent
Constellation Lib


----------



## Ken984

TLE 21 is out. Not too much change. Slightly less inclination.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-19 10:03:44
Orbit # at Epoch 15
Inclination 0.057
RA of A. Node 256.336
Eccentricity 0.0000585
Argument of Perigee 169.930
Revs per day 1.00273530
Period 23h 56m 04s (1436.7 min)
Semi-major axis 42 164 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 784 x 35 789 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 96.612
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 21 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary

1DIRECTV 14
Lon 76.0050° W
Lat 0.0276° S
Alt (km) 35 788.090
Azm 273.7°
Elv -11.3°
RA 16h 23m 47s
Decl -6° 48' 32"
Range (km) 42 951.083
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 184.9° (131)
TA 184.9°
Orbit # 15
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Oph
2Sun
Azm 246.6°
Elv -11.8°
RA 17h 49m 48s
Decl -23° 24' 58"
Lon 59.6545° W
Lat 23.4142° S
Range (km) 147 187 449
Constellation Sgr
3Moon
Azm 276.3°
Elv -26.0°
RA 15h 38m 08s
Decl -16° 54' 52"
Lon 91.8428° W
Lat 16.2461° S
Range (km) 383 743
Illum 8%
Phase Waning crescent
Constellation Lib


----------



## HarleyD

Is DirecTV required to file any sort of declaration with the FCC when the IOT commences?


----------



## Sixto

Unless something significant changes they usually don't file anything, and we just see the satellite move from one location to the other. In the past though, it seems like something always came up (D10 amelioration as an example).


----------



## P Smith

yeah, we are waiting breaking news from the point at 76E


----------



## HarleyD

So we're basically left guessing what's going on until they start the drift West to 99...barring anything catastrophic that they would have an obligation to speak on.

And they don't have to be at 99 until February.

OK. I can wait. I won't have a 4K set by then so I'm probably not going to see any bang for me when it lights up anywhay.


----------



## slice1900

Even if you did have a 4K set you wouldn't see anything different, unless maybe they add a few more choices for their VOD offering. There are no 4K channels available from networks for Directv to broadcast and AFAIK not even any announced yet. So don't look for anything on the 4K front from Directv for a while other than VOD, or maybe some demo loop type stuff. D14 puts the infrastructure in place in space, but they still need 4K capable receivers, and RDBS capable LNBs when they want to go to more than a handful of channels.

D14 will should provide a lot of action with LiLs, MPEG4 SD copies of the content on 95 and 119, and presumably some new HD channels, so we won't be bored


----------



## cypherx

Heck, I wouldn't mind MPEG4 SD copies of SD only channels we have now from 101. Though SD, some of those channels don't offer HD. But DVD looks pretty decent on my plasma. Cable SD looks pretty decent too (they only put 10 SD in one frequency, so thats 3.8mbps a feed). But DirecTV's SD from 101 looks absolutely worse than Youtube these days. Reminds me of the 3gpp video format like when you had those old nokia phones that first introduced mms messaging and a vga camera.


----------



## mrknowitall526

cypherx said:


> Heck, I wouldn't mind MPEG4 SD copies of SD only channels we have now from 101. Though SD, some of those channels don't offer HD. But DVD looks pretty decent on my plasma. Cable SD looks pretty decent too (they only put 10 SD in one frequency, so thats 3.8mbps a feed). But DirecTV's SD from 101 looks absolutely worse than Youtube these days. Reminds me of the 3gpp video format like when you had those old nokia phones that first introduced mms messaging and a vga camera.


There's a lot of channels I stopped watching because the SD quality is just so piss poor. Especially as screens get bigger and bigger ...


----------



## slice1900

cypherx said:


> Heck, I wouldn't mind MPEG4 SD copies of SD only channels we have now from 101. Though SD, some of those channels don't offer HD. But DVD looks pretty decent on my plasma. Cable SD looks pretty decent too (they only put 10 SD in one frequency, so thats 3.8mbps a feed). But DirecTV's SD from 101 looks absolutely worse than Youtube these days. Reminds me of the 3gpp video format like when you had those old nokia phones that first introduced mms messaging and a vga camera.


They might do that too, at least for the ones that Directv pays for rather than being paid for. Anyone have any idea how many channels that would be? Between MPEG4 and the higher bit rate available on the Ka transponders, each Ka transponder can carry about 7/3rds as many SD channels as a Ku transponder on 101, so it probably wouldn't take much.


----------



## P Smith

how many channels would be we will know soon, lets wait for Feb'15


----------



## harsh

HarleyD said:


> Is DirecTV required to file any sort of declaration with the FCC when the IOT commences?


I'm not sure it is safe to say that DIRECTV is in charge of testing. IIRC with Boeing, IOT was baliwick of Boeing and it didn't become DIRECTV's baby until Boeing handed it off at the destination slot.


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> yeah, we are waiting breaking news from the point at 76E


The only news that is expected to be of interest is when DIRECTV 14 leaves 76WEST. Mostly the opposite of confirming that it is still there.


----------



## Jacob Braun

So can someone point an LNB at that slot and see if it's doing anything? How would that work?


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> I'm not sure it is safe to say that DIRECTV is in charge of testing. IIRC with Boeing, IOT was baliwick of Boeing and it didn't become DIRECTV's baby until Boeing handed it off at the destination slot.


You mean a bailiwick? If you are going to use $20 words, at least spell them correctly please.


----------



## Ken984

TLE 22 is out. Not much change.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-20 12:17:28
Orbit # at Epoch 16
Inclination 0.054
RA of A. Node 254.461
Eccentricity 0.0000624
Argument of Perigee 170.336
Revs per day 1.00273109
Period 23h 56m 04s (1436.7 min)
Semi-major axis 42 164 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 784 x 35 789 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 132.596
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 22 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary

1DIRECTV 14
Lon 76.0022° W
Lat 0.0491° N
Alt (km) 35 783.870
Azm 273.7°
Elv -11.2°
RA 01h 01m 29s
Decl -6° 44' 06"
Range (km) 42 940.069
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 315.7° (224)
TA 315.7°
Orbit # 16
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Cet
2Sun
Azm 44.0°
Elv -54.4°
RA 17h 55m 50s
Decl -23° 25' 58"
Lon 172.4260° E
Lat 23.4314° S
Range (km) 147 172 524
Constellation Sgr
3Moon
Azm 57.9°
Elv -44.0°
RA 16h 59m 30s
Decl -18° 56' 20"
Lon 158.1157° E
Lat 18.3527° S
Range (km) 379 039
Illum 2%
Phase New moon
Constellation Oph


----------



## ladannen

Maybe this has been noted earlier, but I noticed tonight that the "Satellite AR" android app now shows D14.


----------



## HoTat2

JBv said:


> So can someone point an LNB at that slot and see if it's doing anything? How would that work?


With a spectrum analyzer connected to an LNBF's output and a way to power the LNBF perhaps since they are only using ummodulated CW signals for testing the frequency and gain transfer responses of the various transponders.

And even then, you would likely just see the test signals from the Ka and RDBS CONUS beam xpndrs. As for the spotbeams the satellite is physically re-oriented or "biased" to successively place each local spotbeam at a time over the uplink station at Castle Rock, CO. for testing their xpndrs.

So unless you are very close to CR to get under the spotbeams' footprint you wouldn't see any of those test signals.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

I did posted what kind of signals you can see by spectrum analyzer from previous Dxx sats... unfortunately this time I'm out of LOS sats westward 45W.


----------



## cypherx

Were they just continuous wave signals? I tried searching P Smith D-12 and I just got one hit on a 2002 DirecTV newsletter because it hit on Smith , as it Will Smith.


----------



## Ken984

TLE 23 is out. not too much change.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-22 04:04:59
Orbit # at Epoch 18
Inclination 0.050
RA of A. Node 252.880
Eccentricity 0.0000743
Argument of Perigee 171.572
Revs per day 1.00272293
Period 23h 56m 05s (1436.8 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 783 x 35 790 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 11.453
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 23 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary


Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-22 04:04:59
Orbit # at Epoch 18
Inclination 0.050
RA of A. Node 252.880
Eccentricity 0.0000743
Argument of Perigee 171.572
Revs per day 1.00272293
Period 23h 56m 05s (1436.8 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 783 x 35 790 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 11.453
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 23 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary


----------



## P Smith

cypherx said:


> Were they just continuous wave signals? I tried searching P Smith D-12 and I just got one hit on a 2002 DirecTV newsletter because it hit on Smith , as it Will Smith.


I don't remember in which thread ... perhaps it was D-10 or D-11 ...
One of interesting signal was narrow spike sweeping from low to hi freqs and back ... bounced


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> I don't remember in which thread ... perhaps it was D-10 or D-11 ...
> One of interesting signal was narrow spike sweeping from low to hi freqs and back ... bounced


That seems consistent with the brief description about verification testing of the transponders' involving "swept" frequency responses and gain transfer characteristics in the IOT STA.



> _From the IOT STA_
> 
> _... Operation and testing of DIRECTV 14 and DIRECTV RB-1 during lOT will _
> _consist of performance verification testing of all transponders and antenna pattern
> verification testing of all antenna beams. *During this testing unmodulated CW carriers
> will be used to generate swept frequency response and gain transfer characteristics of
> each transponder.*_


----------



## Ken984

TLE 24 is out.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-23 08:13:24
Orbit # at Epoch 19
Inclination 0.049
RA of A. Node 251.389
Eccentricity 0.0000774
Argument of Perigee 174.833
Revs per day 1.00271831
Period 23h 56m 05s (1436.8 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 783 x 35 790 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 72.942
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 24 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary


1DIRECTV 14
Lon 75.9879° W
Lat 0.0069° N
Alt (km) 35 783.200
Azm 273.7°
Elv -11.3°
RA 05h 47m 50s
Decl -6° 46' 35"
Range (km) 42 942.128
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 25.9° (18)
TA 25.9°
Orbit # 20
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Ori
2Sun
Azm 107.7°
Elv -16.1°
RA 18h 10m 00s
Decl -23° 25' 01"
Lon 104.3934° E
Lat 23.4150° S
Range (km) 147 142 793
Constellation Sgr
3Moon
Azm 78.3°
Elv -28.4°
RA 20h 11m 57s
Decl -15° 50' 44"
Lon 134.5170° E
Lat 15.1564° S
Range (km) 369 239
Illum 7%
Phase Waxing crescent
Constellation Cap


----------



## doctor j

TLE-26 Still at TEST Location

10 DIRECTV 14_26
Lon 75.9875° W
Lat 0.0247° S
Alt (km) 35 789.540
Azm 160.9°
Elv 49.3°
RA 15h 14m 45s
Decl -5° 25' 43"
Range (km) 37 120.485
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.074
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 160.0° (113)
TA 160.0°
Orbit # 22

Name 0 DIRECTV 14_26
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-26 03:42:48
Orbit # at Epoch 22
Inclination 0.044
RA of A. Node 248.603
Eccentricity 0.0000804
Argument of Perigee 178.523
Revs per day 1.00271007
Period 23h 56m 06s (1436.10 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 783 x 35 790 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 7.153
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 26 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A

Doctor j


----------



## cypherx

It will be at test location until February correct?


----------



## HoTat2

cypherx said:


> It will be at test location until February correct?


No its scheduled to arrive at its operational slot of 99.235W by early Feb. (around Feb. 5th).

This is after a 23 day prior drift period from 76W, so IOT should wrap-up in mid-January.


----------



## Ken984

TLE 27.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-27 06:07:00
Orbit # at Epoch 23
Inclination 0.042
RA of A. Node 246.756
Eccentricity 0.0000704
Argument of Perigee 179.888
Revs per day 1.00270766
Period 23h 56m 06s (1436.10 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 784 x 35 790 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 44.770
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 27 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary



1DIRECTV 14
Lon 75.9969° W
Lat 0.0288° N
Alt (km) 35 784.380
Azm 273.7°
Elv -11.3°
RA 01h 01m 20s
Decl -6° 45' 17"
Range (km) 42 941.982
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 313.8° (222)
TA 313.8°
Orbit # 23
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Cet
2Sun
Azm 32.3°
Elv -57.2°
RA 18h 26m 48s
Decl -23° 17' 35"
Lon 179.7839° W
Lat 23.2918° S
Range (km) 147 117 398
Constellation Sgr
3Moon
Azm 294.0°
Elv -17.9°
RA 23h 41m 03s
Decl -0° 46' 39"
Lon 100.4942° W
Lat 0.0030° N
Range (km) 372 421
Illum 40%
Phase First quarter
Constellation Psc


----------



## JosephB

cypherx said:


> Heck, I wouldn't mind MPEG4 SD copies of SD only channels we have now from 101. Though SD, some of those channels don't offer HD. But DVD looks pretty decent on my plasma. Cable SD looks pretty decent too (they only put 10 SD in one frequency, so thats 3.8mbps a feed). But DirecTV's SD from 101 looks absolutely worse than Youtube these days. Reminds me of the 3gpp video format like when you had those old nokia phones that first introduced mms messaging and a vga camera.


A much, much better use of the bandwidth would be to simply downconvert HD feeds for SD televisions instead of starting a new round of SD duplication. Yeah, moving SD to MPEG-4 would improve PQ and reduce bandwidth (eventually) but downconverting HD would get you even better PQ and even better bandwidth savings. Of course, networks that only offer an SD feed don't apply and I'd agree an MPEG-4 feed would be nice, but I suspect those numbers will be dropping as time moves forward.


----------



## slice1900

JosephB said:


> A much, much better use of the bandwidth would be to simply downconvert HD feeds for SD televisions instead of starting a new round of SD duplication. Yeah, moving SD to MPEG-4 would improve PQ and reduce bandwidth (eventually) but downconverting HD would get you even better PQ and even better bandwidth savings. Of course, networks that only offer an SD feed don't apply and I'd agree an MPEG-4 feed would be nice, but I suspect those numbers will be dropping as time moves forward.


cypherx was walking about channels that are ONLY offered in SD. Directv carries at most one MPEG4 version of each channel, there isn't any case where they carry MPEG4 HD and MPEG4 SD of the same channel, and that wasn't being suggested.


----------



## P Smith

Any press release or twitter how IOT going?


----------



## Ken984

New TLE 29.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-30 01:54:27
Orbit # at Epoch 26
Inclination 0.040
RA of A. Node 222.408
Eccentricity 0.0000465
Argument of Perigee 192.595
Revs per day 1.00271272
Period 23h 56m 06s (1436.10 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 785 x 35 789 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 356.063
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 29 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary




1DIRECTV 14
Lon 75.9814° W
Lat 0.0002° S
Alt (km) 35 788.150
Azm 273.7°
Elv -11.3°
RA 16h 29m 57s
Decl -6° 46' 57"
Range (km) 42 947.214
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 197.6° (140)
TA 197.6°
Orbit # 27
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Oph
2Sun
Azm 238.7°
Elv -5.9°
RA 18h 38m 29s
Decl -23° 08' 31"
Lon 49.0009° W
Lat 23.1400° S
Range (km) 147 106 152
Constellation Sgr
3Moon
Azm 123.8°
Elv 34.6°
RA 02h 04m 42s
Decl 10° 17' 04"
Lon 62.1942° E
Lat 10.9443° N
Range (km) 375 372
Illum 68%
Phase First quarter
Constellation Ari


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> Any press release or twitter how IOT going?


Nothing I can locate so far much beyond the official filings already released.

Oh I'm sure there's obviously regular internal communications and updates of the testing process going on of course. But nothing released or leaked to the public somewhere that I'm aware of.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## dpeters11

I think no news is good news in this case.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Perigee x Apogee 35 785 x 35 789 km

How close to zero will the difference get?


----------



## P Smith

yosoyellobo said:


> Perigee x Apogee 35 785 x 35 789 km
> 
> How close to zero will the difference get?


counting a box's parameters as 0.05 degree (best deviation), the 4 km difference is nominal now


----------



## fleckrj

Remember, too, that the earth is not a perfect sphere. The 4 km difference between perigee and apogee is already less than the deviation that the earth is from being a sphere.

I would be more curious about why the period of rotation is about 4 minutes short of 24 hours. Would that not cause the satellite to drift?


----------



## HoTat2

fleckrj said:


> ...
> 
> I would be more curious about why the period of rotation is about 4 minutes short of 24 hours. Would that not cause the satellite to drift?


Nah ...

The GEO period of the satellite to orbit the earth once relative to the stars (or the "sideral period") is about 4 min. less than the 24 hr. "solar period" which is the time required for the satellite to orbit once relative to a given local noon longitude meridian on earth (76W in this particular instance for D14's current GEO location.

This period is 4 min. longer than the sideral to come full circle due to the simultaneous revolution of the earth around the sun as the satellite orbits the earth at the same time.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Ken984

TLE 30

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2014-12-31 02:13:27
Orbit # at Epoch 27
Inclination 0.039
RA of A. Node 222.090
Eccentricity 0.0000503
Argument of Perigee 179.969
Revs per day 1.00270972
Period 23h 56m 06s (1436.10 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 785 x 35 789 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 14.749
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 30 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary


1DIRECTV 14
Lon 75.9835° W
Lat 0.0081° S
Alt (km) 35 788.450
Azm 273.7°
Elv -11.3°
RA 15h 05m 26s
Decl -6° 47' 25"
Range (km) 42 948.333
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 189.4° (134)
TA 189.4°
Orbit # 27
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Lib
2Sun
Azm 221.1°
Elv 4.5°
RA 18h 42m 58s
Decl -22° 54' 46"
Lon 26.8385° W
Lat 23.0730° S
Range (km) 147 103 429
Constellation Sgr
3Moon
Azm 91.5°
Elv 17.9°
RA 02h 55m 20s
Decl 13° 17' 30"
Lon 95.9372° E
Lat 13.9640° N
Range (km) 380 483
Illum 77%
Phase Waxing gibbous
Constellation Ari


----------



## fleckrj

HoTat2 said:


> Nah ...
> 
> The GEO period of the satellite to orbit the earth once relative to the stars (or the "sideral period") is about 4 min. less than the 24 hr. "solar period" which is the time required for the satellite to orbit once relative to a given local noon longitude meridian on earth (76W in this particular instance for D14's current GEO location.
> 
> This period is 4 min. longer than the sideral to come full circle due to the simultaneous revolution of the earth around the sun as the satellite orbits the earth at the same time.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


I forgot to consider that. 1440 minutes per day / 365.25 days per year = 3 minutes 56 seconds per day to account for one lost revolution per year.


----------



## yosoyellobo

P Smith said:


> counting a box's parameters as 0.05 degree (best deviation), the 4 km difference is nominal now


Thanks.


----------



## I WANT MORE

HoTat2 said:


> Nah ...
> 
> The GEO period of the satellite to orbit the earth once relative to the stars (or the "sideral period") is about 4 min. less than the 24 hr. "solar period" which is the time required for the satellite to orbit once relative to a given local noon longitude meridian on earth (76W in this particular instance for D14's current GEO location.
> 
> This period is 4 min. longer than the sideral to come full circle due to the simultaneous revolution of the earth around the sun as the satellite orbits the earth at the same time.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Everyone knows that. :righton:


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> Any press release or twitter how IOT going?


In all the years I've been following these launches, there has never been a press release on a successful deployment until the satellite is handed off (and not always then). I don't see that changing with DIRECTV 14 as it isn't anybody's business but SSL and DIRECTV.


----------



## Oli74

Why am I seeing only a smaller screen on some channels? Are these the one that should be in HD soon? By the way Happy New Year 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

Oli74 said:


> Why am I seeing only a smaller screen on some channels? Are these the one that should be in HD soon? By the way Happy New Year
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you are referring to the "window-box" pictures on an increasing nunber of SD channels nowadays, i.e. black borders on all four sides for an un-zoomed in HDTV screen.
Its mainly because many channel providers today supply only single HD feeds to the MVPDs instead of separate HD and SD ones, whether they are contracted to actually broadcast the HD version of the channel or not.

The MVPDs like DIRECTV then merely down-convert and letter-box the 16:9 HD feed to produce a 4:3 SD version which results in an SD window-box image on an HDTV screen unless you zoom in on it.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy

You'll actually have a better picture when letter or window boxed. Resizing to fill the whole screen results in too few pixels to give a good picture and stretching adds distortion.


----------



## WB4CS

I know we're off topic, but try explaining window-boxing and letterbox to your grandmother! 

My grandmother got a new HDTV for Christmas, finally replacing her 20+ year old 36" tube. She also upgraded to HD cable. During Christmas dinner with the family, I tried for over an hour to explain why some channels didn't "fill up the screen" on her new TV. She's considering selling her brand new TV and pulling the old 36" out of the garage. *SIGH*

The fun of being the family Tech Guy.


----------



## slice1900

WB4CS said:


> I know we're off topic, but try explaining window-boxing and letterbox to your grandmother!
> 
> My grandmother got a new HDTV for Christmas, finally replacing her 20+ year old 36" tube. She also upgraded to HD cable. During Christmas dinner with the family, I tried for over an hour to explain why some channels didn't "fill up the screen" on her new TV. She's considering selling her brand new TV and pulling the old 36" out of the garage. *SIGH*
> 
> The fun of being the family Tech Guy.


So why not set her TV to stretch 4:3 content so this doesn't happen? AFAIK every HDTV supports this.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Hide all her HD channel.


----------



## HoTat2

WB4CS said:


> I know we're off topic, but try explaining window-boxing and letterbox to your grandmother!
> 
> My grandmother got a new HDTV for Christmas, finally replacing her 20+ year old 36" tube. She also upgraded to HD cable. During Christmas dinner with the family, I tried for over an hour to explain why some channels didn't "fill up the screen" on her new TV. She's considering selling her brand new TV and pulling the old 36" out of the garage. *SIGH*
> 
> The fun of being the family Tech Guy.


Forget about grandparents here,

They along with our mothers and fathers are all now long past on both sides of the family. But no matter, I still struggle to explain the basic concepts of aspect ratio and resolution to all the decendants around here. 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## HarleyD

Tell me about it.

All technology needs to work the way my wife has reasoned that it should work for no other reason than she wills it to be so.


----------



## Renard

Here's a professional installation that I did today to get Directv 14 at 76 degree. Noted the elevation and azimuth of the dish on the right to receive it is crucial at this point.

Signals = 0% I think I am missing something. HELP please HELP. :bang

http://branchcontractors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/how-to-install-a-satellite-dish-to-prevent-emergency-roof-repair-athens-ga.jpg


----------



## P Smith

It's amateurish installation  there is no signals for you!


----------



## P Smith

Seriously, IOT signals can be receivable by spectrum analyzer, we discuss it above, see my old posts with snapshots from D10-11-12 sats.


----------



## HoTat2

Renard said:


> Here's a professional installation that I did today to get Directv 14 at 76 degree. Noted the elevation and azimuth of the dish on the right to receive it is crucial at this point.
> 
> Signals = 0% I think I am missing something. HELP please HELP. :bang
> 
> http://branchcontractors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/how-to-install-a-satellite-dish-to-prevent-emergency-roof-repair-athens-ga.jpg


No, as P. Smith says;

You would need an LNBF capable of receiving the Ka and if you wish, RDBS, bands connected to a spectrum analyzer (possibly through a type of loop-thru arrangement like with a directional coupler) to an appropriate power source for the LNBF.

A DIRECTV receiver wouldn't be authorized or otherwise know what to do with the sweeping and unmodulated CW signals that are being used for the testing process.

And even then, this setup would only register signals when they are testing the CONUS beam wide transponders. If spotbeams are being tested you would need to get sufficiently close (i.e. within about a 200 mi. radius) of DIRECTV's Castle Rock broadcast center in CO. to get under the footprint of the individual spotbeams as they are successively placed over the center to view them.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## HarleyD

Renard said:


> Here's a professional installation that I did today to get Directv 14 at 76 degree. Noted the elevation and azimuth of the dish on the right to receive it is crucial at this point.
> 
> Signals = 0% I think I am missing something. HELP please HELP. :bang
> 
> http://branchcontractors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/how-to-install-a-satellite-dish-to-prevent-emergency-roof-repair-athens-ga.jpg


----------



## Renard

Renard said:


> Here's a professional installation that I did today to get Directv 14 at 76 degree. Noted the elevation and azimuth of the dish on the right to receive it is crucial at this point.
> 
> Signals = 0% I think I am missing something. HELP please HELP. :bang
> 
> http://branchcontractors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/how-to-install-a-satellite-dish-to-prevent-emergency-roof-repair-athens-ga.jpg


I know where my mistake is. I am aiming at the 119 degree, 76 should be on the left. :rotfl: !rolling


----------



## Ken984

TLE 32 is out.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-03 11:14:16
Orbit # at Epoch 30
Inclination 0.038
RA of A. Node 222.969
Eccentricity 0.0000760
Argument of Perigee 162.069
Revs per day 1.00270132
Period 23h 56m 07s (1436.12 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 784 x 35 790 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 170.286
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 32 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary


1DIRECTV 14
Lon 76.0016° W
Lat 0.0137° N
Alt (km) 35 784.580
Azm 273.7°
Elv -11.3°
RA 21h 55m 50s
Decl -6° 46' 10"
Range (km) 42 943.796
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 309.1° (219)
TA 309.1°
Orbit # 30
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Aqr
2Sun
Azm 304.3°
Elv -49.5°
RA 18h 57m 05s
Decl -22° 47' 15"
Lon 125.8427° W
Lat 22.7863° S
Range (km) 147 099 197
Constellation Sgr
3Moon
Azm 149.7°
Elv 52.1°
RA 05h 50m 17s
Decl 18° 08' 35"
Lon 37.4561° E
Lat 18.6683° N
Range (km) 389 353
Illum 98%
Phase Full moon
Constellation Ori


----------



## cypherx

Does this mean it's stable in its test location? Or are we still waiting on it to arrive dead on? Surely .0016 away from 76 degrees is pretty darn close, right?


----------



## HoTat2

cypherx said:


> Does this mean it's stable in its test location? Or are we still waiting on it to arrive dead on? Surely .0016 away from 76 degrees is pretty darn close, right?


Oh I'm sure its long considered parked by now, but it's attitude or orientation at the orbital slot with respect to the earth is being readjusted at times to place each spotbeam over CR for testing and evaluation of its transponder(s) and beam shape for that particular spotbeam.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

cypherx said:


> Does this mean it's stable in its test location? Or are we still waiting on it to arrive dead on? Surely .0016 away from 76 degrees is pretty darn close, right?


It has been "dead on" a number of times.

DIRECTV made a recent filing promising that they would hold their inclinination down to .025 degrees. Anything within .05 (19 miles) is probably good for orbital location but I might imagine that testing that is one of the things they want to accomplish.

In the grand scheme the spot beams -- as determined by where the satellite is and where it is pointing; origin and vector -- can't be squirming around all that much if they're only 50 miles wide.


----------



## slice1900

I doubt they need to test the smaller inclination. That's simple orbital mechanics, probably the most well-understood part of the whole endeavor.


----------



## Oli74

Any word if we are going to get more ESPN channels and other channels this month? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ken984

TLE 33 is out.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-04 11:18:17
Orbit # at Epoch 31
Inclination 0.038
RA of A. Node 222.712
Eccentricity 0.0000893
Argument of Perigee 157.128
Revs per day 1.00269940
Period 23h 56m 07s (1436.12 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 783 x 35 791 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 177.472
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 33 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary


1DIRECTV 14
Lon 76.0091° W
Lat 0.0102° N
Alt (km) 35 785.530
Azm 273.7°
Elv -11.3°
RA 20h 06m 59s
Decl -6° 46' 21"
Range (km) 42 945.549
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 287.1° (203)
TA 287.0°
Orbit # 31
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Aql
2Sun
Azm 276.5°
Elv -33.6°
RA 19h 01m 08s
Decl -22° 41' 33"
Lon 97.6253° W
Lat 22.6909° S
Range (km) 147 099 486
Constellation Sgr
3Moon
Azm 104.7°
Elv 32.6°
RA 06h 40m 15s
Decl 17° 35' 55"
Lon 76.8414° E
Lat 18.1891° N
Range (km) 393 954
Illum 100%
Phase Full moon
Constellation Gem


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Oli74 said:


> Any word if we are going to get more ESPN channels and other channels this month?


That seems off topic.

The sat won't be ready/live this month, and the main emphasis isn't on more ESPN channels.


----------



## Oli74

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That seems off topic.
> 
> The sat won't be ready/live this month, and the main emphasis isn't on more ESPN channels.


Yes it's of topic just a quick question. Thanks

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

Oli74 said:


> Yes it's of topic just a quick question. Thanks


There is an entirely different thread for channel questions ... please use it.


----------



## HoTat2

DIRECTV recent FCC filings of STAs for authorization of TT&C frequencies for the movement or "drift" of D14 from 76W to 99.235W.

Notable in the filings is that IOT is stated to conclude "on or about" Jan. 12.



Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> DIRECTV recent FCC filings of STAs for authorization of TT&C frequencies for the movement or "drift" of D14 from 76W to 99.235W.
> 
> Notable in the filings is that IOT is stated to conclude "on or about" Jan. 12.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


I'm severely disappointed  - no amelioration, no twisting antennas, no burned TWTA!


Give us new NIT at least!


----------



## woj027

just what does Special Temporary Authority (STA) mean? 

Is it just a way of saying, can we have permission to move from point A to point B?


----------



## Ken984

TLE 35.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-06 02:25:41
Orbit # at Epoch 33
Inclination 0.036
RA of A. Node 221.873
Eccentricity 0.0000899
Argument of Perigee 153.398
Revs per day 1.00269532
Period 23h 56m 07s (1436.12 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 783 x 35 791 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 50.487
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 35 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary



1DIRECTV 14
Lon 76.0194° W
Lat 0.0007° S
Alt (km) 35 789.300
Azm 273.7°
Elv -11.3°
RA 15h 50m 46s
Decl -6° 46' 57"
Range (km) 42 950.902
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 227.6° (161)
TA 227.6°
Orbit # 33
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Lib
2Sun
Azm 225.3°
Elv 3.1°
RA 19h 09m 35s
Decl -22° 16' 47"
Lon 31.5854° W
Lat 22.4844° S
Range (km) 147 101 957
Constellation Sgr
3Moon
Azm 34.7°
Elv -16.5°
RA 08h 12m 14s
Decl 14° 21' 23"
Lon 164.0200° E
Lat 15.1694° N
Range (km) 404 182
Illum 98%
Phase Full moon
Constellation Cnc


----------



## bakers12

woj027 said:


> just what does Special Temporary Authority (STA) mean?
> 
> Is it just a way of saying, can we have permission to move from point A to point B?


Yes, and to be able to communicate with the satellite on the way for purposes of TT&C (Telemetry, Tracking and Control).


----------



## bakers12

P Smith said:


> I'm severely disappointed  - no amelioration, no twisting antennas, no burned TWTA!
> 
> 
> Give us new NIT at least!


Get over it. If you want drama, watch TV! :lol:


----------



## P Smith

bakers12 said:


> Get over it. If you want drama, watch TV! :lol:


don't worry about my time ... I've many thing to do and less then 24 hrs per day


----------



## SledgeHammer

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That seems off topic.
> 
> The sat won't be ready/live this month, and the main emphasis isn't on more ESPN channels.


I hope not. My RSN is high enough and I watch ZERO sports.


----------



## HoTat2

bakers12 said:


> Yes, and to be able to communicate with the satellite on the way for purposes of TT&C (Telemetry, Tracking and Control).


Or "Telemetry, Tracking, and Command"
DIRECTV uses them interchangeably, though the later seems more correct since "Tracking" and "Telemetry" can also be considered as forms of "control."

Of note, intelsat calls it "TC&R" for "Tracking, Command, and Ranging."

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## I WANT MORE

P Smith said:


> I'm severely disappointed  - no amelioration, no twisting antennas, *no burned TWTA!*
> 
> 
> Give us new NIT at least!


That has got to hurt like Hell.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

SledgeHammer said:


> I hope not. My RSN is high enough and I watch ZERO sports.


The thread is about D-14 and its launch and activation...not specific programming choices.

Back to topic.


----------



## Ken984

TLE 37.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-07 10:46:01
Orbit # at Epoch 34
Inclination 0.035
RA of A. Node 220.620
Eccentricity 0.0000923
Argument of Perigee 153.754
Revs per day 1.00269210
Period 23h 56m 08s (1436.13 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 783 x 35 791 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 177.783
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 37 / 1 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary



1DIRECTV 14
Lon 76.0380° W
Lat 0.0014° N
Alt (km) 35 789.750
Azm 273.7°
Elv -11.3°
RA 15h 27m 32s
Decl -6° 46' 49"
Range (km) 42 952.380
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.074
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 222.7° (158)
TA 222.6°
Orbit # 35
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Lib
2Sun
Azm 218.8°
Elv 6.4°
RA 19h 18m 00s
Decl -22° 06' 41"
Lon 23.6347° W
Lat 22.2318° S
Range (km) 147 107 516
Constellation Sgr
3Moon
Azm 5.7°
Elv -28.1°
RA 09h 45m 45s
Decl 8° 43' 34"
Lon 166.5403° W
Lat 9.5174° N
Range (km) 408 552
Illum 90%
Phase Waning gibbous
Constellation Leo


----------



## doctor j

A sure sign that the move has begun will be a perseptable increase in eccentricity.
Doctor j


----------



## P Smith

doctor j said:


> A sure sign that the move has begun will be a perseptable increase in eccentricity.
> Doctor j


should start drifting next week...


----------



## HoTat2

doctor j said:


> A sure sign that the move has begun will be a perseptable increase in eccentricity.
> Doctor j


An increase in eccentricity?

I always thought that drift is established by moving the satellite to a *circular* orbit slightly above or below the geostationary altitude.

Oh well, shows how much I know. .. 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## RAD

From http://advanced-television.com/2015/01/08/directv-confirms-2-satellites-for-4kuhd/



> DirecTV used International CES in Las Vegas to confirm that it will have two satellites serving its 4K needs across the USA. Philip Goswitz, an SVP at DirecTV, added that one recently-launched satellite is now operational and the other is going up in May, he said.


While the 4K info really isn't anything new the part about D14, I assume that's what he's talking about, interesting. We know it's not at 99 yet but guess the testing didn't uncover any problems with it.


----------



## HoTat2

RAD said:


> From http://advanced-television.com/2015/01/08/directv-confirms-2-satellites-for-4kuhd/
> 
> While the 4K info really isn't anything new the part about D14, I assume that's what he's talking about, interesting. We know it's not at 99 yet but guess the testing didn't uncover any problems with it.


Wonder if this implies then that all the legal tussling over use of the RDBS band at 103W has been resolved then?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> I always thought that drift is established by moving the satellite to a *circular* orbit slightly above or below the geostationary altitude.


I believe your recollection is correct. High eccentricity would cause the satellite to cross paths with the Clarke Belt on a more or less regular basis and that would be a VERY bad thing.

The altitude should increase (to decrease angular velocity) but the eccentricity can't vary all that much to avoid crossing.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Wonder if this implies then that all the legal tussling over use of the RDBS band at 103W has been resolved then?


I don't think it has been resolved, but the FCC already approved Directv launching an RDBS package to 103 so Ciel/Hughes/Dish would have to fight this in the ITU since the FCC will probably just ignore their petitions as they've done that before when someone tries an end-run around their assignment authority. I just checked and don't see anything new, it is still listed as "filed".

One other thing I since saw mentioned elsewhere - that Ciel-6 satellite that is sitting on 103 with RDBS transponders spent a short time at 99, reportedly to fulfill licensing requirements. So it may have broadcast some RDBS from 99 if Ciel holds a Canadian license there and might make Directv fight this battle on both fronts.

Even if Directv doesn't have any hardware ready that is capable of receiving RDBS they should light up all the transponders on both ASAP after they're in position. If there's going to be a legal fight, get it out of the way before it actually matters for customers. I would think a lawsuit would be in a weaker position if they wait six months or whatever until Directv actually has customers receiving the signal before filing.


----------



## Ken984

TLE 38.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-08 23:15:37
Orbit # at Epoch 36
Inclination 0.032
RA of A. Node 217.295
Eccentricity 0.0001131
Argument of Perigee 157.890
Revs per day 1.00268823
Period 23h 56m 08s (1436.13 min)
Semi-major axis 42 166 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 783 x 35 792 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 5.857
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 38 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary


1DIRECTV 14
Lon 76.0515° W
Lat 0.0040° N
Alt (km) 35 790.390
Azm 273.8°
Elv -11.3°
RA 15h 35m 16s
Decl -6° 46' 39"
Range (km) 42 953.676
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.074
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 223.8° (159)
TA 223.8°
Orbit # 36
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Lib


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> I believe your recollection is correct. *High eccentricity would cause the satellite to cross paths with the Clarke Belt* on a more or less regular basis and that would be a VERY bad thing.
> 
> The altitude should increase (to decrease angular velocity) but the eccentricity can't vary all that much to avoid crossing.


Not if the perigee was (safely) outside the Clarke Belt or the apogee was within it.


----------



## HoTat2

studechip said:


> Not if the perigee was (safely) outside the Clarke Belt or the apogee was within it.


Don't you mean "if apogee was safely outside the Clarke Belt and perigee within it?"

And if its still in an equatorial orbit won't that still mean it has to cross through the Clarke belt twice going to and from the apogee point?


----------



## studechip

HoTat2 said:


> Don't you mean "if apogee was safely outside the Clarke Belt and perigee within it?"
> 
> And if its still in an equatorial orbit won't that still mean it has to cross through the Clarke belt twice going to and from the apogee point?


No. Apogee is the furthest point of an orbit. If the furthest apogee is 22,000 miles, then it stays within the Clarke Belt at 22,300 miles. As far as getting through the Clarke Belt, I'll leave that to the rocket scientists!


----------



## Oli74

HoTat2 said:


> Don't you mean "if apogee was safely outside the Clarke Belt and perigee within it?"
> 
> And if its still in an equatorial orbit won't that still mean it has to cross through the Clarke belt twice going to and from the apogee point?


Wow I never heard of the Clarke Belt until now . I do know that satellites go round the earth. It's true that you something new everyday

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jon J

Oli74 said:


> Wow I never heard of the Clarke Belt until now . I do know that satellites go round the earth.


Arthur is weeping. And a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is not moving relative to its position to earth. (The rocket scientists will surely correct me if I am wrong.)


----------



## Oli74

Jon J said:


> Arthur is weeping. And a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is not moving relative to its position to earth. (The rocket scientists will surely correct me if I am wrong.)


Oh ok thanks

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

Jon J said:


> Arthur is weeping. And a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is not moving relative to its position to earth. (The rocket scientists will surely correct me if I am wrong.)


Well, I'm not a rocket scientist 

But I do know that technically speaking, a satellite can be geosynchronous, but not necessarily geostationary. If the orbit is both geosynchronous and circular then it will be geostationary as well.

If it is geosynchronous, but the orbit is non-circular or elliptical, then it will not be geostationary and will move relative to the earth even though it is actually geosynchronous in it's orbital period.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

studechip said:


> Not if the perigee was (safely) outside the Clarke Belt or the apogee was within it.


If all you're changing is the eccentricity (as doctor j cited as the telltale of the process starting in post 2202), it will absolutely cross the Clarke Belt.

There isn't much room for eccentricity given the typically small change in elevation that is the transfer orbit.


----------



## fleckrj

HoTat2 said:


> Well, I'm not a rocket scientist
> 
> But I do know that technically speaking, a satellite can be geosynchronous, but not necessarily geostationary. If the orbit is both geosynchronous and circular then it will be geostationary as well.
> 
> If it is geosynchronous, but the orbit is non-circular or elliptical, then it will not be geostationary and will move relative to the earth even though it is actually geosynchronous in it's orbital period.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


I am not a rocket scientist, either, but my daughter is. Geosynchronous means that the satellite is over the same spot on Earth at the same time of day, but throughout the day, the satellite will appear to be moving in a figure eight pattern. The orbit is circular, but not equatorial. How big the figure eight appears is dependant on the inclination of the orbit, i.e. the deviation of the orbit from the equator. The Solar Dynamics Observatory is a good example of a satellite with a geosynchronous, but not geostationary orbit. It makes a figure eight over White Sands, NM. At any given time of day, it is always in the same place, but over the course of the day it is always moving.

Geostationary is when the satellite is over the same spot on the Earth all of the time. To be geostationary, the orbit must be circular and equatorial.


----------



## CockerKingdom

Where's Lame Lefty when you need him.


----------



## P Smith

CockerKingdom said:


> Where's Lame Lefty when you need him.


Why you need him now ? He (and other) posted all the info at D10-D11-D12 launch threads. Just read it.


----------



## bakers12

Assuming TLE 38 is still current, Orbitron shows that D14 has drifted West enough that is it out of position for testing (greater than .05 degrees off 76W). If IOT is not finished, I doubt that D14 would be out of position. It looks like the move to 99W is beginning, maybe slowly, but we might not be seeing the latest TLE.

Does anyone know if the FCC has granted the STA for D14 to move?


----------



## P Smith

Without the grant, they couldn't use TT&C freq - without using the freq,they can't control the movement.


----------



## harsh

bakers12 said:


> Assuming TLE 38 is still current, Orbitron shows that D14 has drifted West enough that is it out of position for testing (greater than .05 degrees off 76W).


TLE 39 puts it at 76.05°W (as of this writing) so it is closer to the testing slot than it was according to TLE 38.

DIRECTV 14
1 40333U 14078B 15011.17689903 -.00000241 00000-0 00000+0 0 396
2 40333 0.0300 170.5617 0001700 219.4227 68.0168 1.00271207 380

Hovering over 76.05°W x .01°N
Elevation 35791km (35786 is geostationary)


----------



## fleckrj

Do we really know that the test location is 76.0000? I suspect that the target might be closer to 76.0350, and the variation we are seeing is normal station keeping during the test phase. When it starts drifting to 103, we will see changes of more that 1 degree per day, and not the +/- 0.01 degree we are seeing now.


----------



## HoTat2

fleckrj said:


> ...When it starts drifting to 103, we will see changes of more that 1 degree per day, and not the +/- 0.01 degree we are seeing now.


That is ... drifting to 99W. 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## fleckrj

HoTat2 said:


> That is ... drifting to 99W.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


My bad, but still, to get from 76 to 99 in about three weeks, the change will be more than 1 degree per day.


----------



## harsh

bakers12 said:


> Does anyone know if the FCC has granted the STA for D14 to move?


Last Monday (January 5, 2015), DIRECTV submitted the application for the drift STA. The clock is to start "at the conclusion of in-orbit testing". From here, the FCC must determine if the application fee has been paid and then review and decide on whether or not to grant the application.

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1072253 (the interesting stuff is in section 8)

On Thursday (January 8, 2015), DIRECTV was granted a move (SATMOD) of both Spaceway 2 and DIRECTV 11 just a bit to the East. These applications were submitted on November 21, 2014 if I'm reading the paperwork right (the application forms themselves say October 29, 2014).


----------



## slice1900

I would think the TT&C application for the drift to 99 is pretty much a formality, since they had already applied for and received permission to launch D14 to 76, and conduct IOT, and that application mentioned a 23 day drift to 99. So the need for TT&C from 76 to 99 isn't exactly coming as a surprise to the FCC.

The application is probably approved very quickly, but the web site may not be updated in a timely manner.


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> The application is probably approved very quickly, but the web site may not be updated in a timely manner.


Most likely ...


----------



## Ken984

TLE 40. It does look like it has started the move.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-12 02:33:29
Orbit # at Epoch 39
Inclination 0.030
RA of A. Node 173.770
Eccentricity 0.0002000
Argument of Perigee 219.393
Revs per day 1.00270165
Period 23h 56m 07s (1436.12 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
*Perigee x Apogee 35 779 x 35 795 km*
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 40.432
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 40 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary

1DIRECTV 14
Lon 76.0555° W
Lat 0.0165° N
Alt (km) 35 794.570
Azm 273.8°
Elv -11.3°
RA 15h 03m 53s
Decl -6° 45' 52"
Range (km) 42 956.980
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.074
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 198.0° (140)
TA 198.0°
Orbit # 39
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Lib


----------



## P Smith

I would think they just loosen up station keeping box...if they will start moving,we should see the sat at different altitude.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> I would think the TT&C application for the drift to 99 is pretty much a formality, since they had already applied for and received permission to launch D14 to 76, and conduct IOT, and that application mentioned a 23 day drift to 99. So the need for TT&C from 76 to 99 isn't exactly coming as a surprise to the FCC.


I think it is interesting that DIRECTV waited until the 5th to file; especially since it is all conditional on completion of IOT.


> The application is probably approved very quickly, but the web site may not be updated in a timely manner.


The web site was updated this morning and the application has been accepted.

EDIT:

Looking at the attachments, I see that the application was granted three days later _with conditions_.

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1072689

This is almost certainly why the SATMOD filing on the 8th to move the other two birds happened. Why didn't DIRECTV think of that?


----------



## harsh

Ken984 said:


> TLE 40. It does look like it has started the move.


The numbers from TLE 38 were more promising.


----------



## bakers12

harsh said:


> Looking at the attachments, I see that the application was granted three days later _with conditions_.
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1072689
> 
> This is almost certainly why the SATMOD filing on the 8th to move the other two birds happened. Why didn't DIRECTV think of that?


Just to be clear, the application shown at this link is for DIRECTV 11, not DIRECTV 14. But it does show a bit about what's going on at the 99 degree slot.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> I think it is interesting that DIRECTV waited until the 5th to file; especially since it is all conditional on completion of IOT.
> The web site was updated this morning and the application has been accepted.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Looking at the attachments, I see that the application was granted three days later _with conditions_.
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1072689
> 
> This is almost certainly why the SATMOD filing on the 8th to move the other two birds happened. Why didn't DIRECTV think of that?


They may have to wait until IOT is complete, since it is possible if they discover a problem and wish further testing they would instead file for an extension of IOT at 76*.

The previous filings for D14 indicated they would be moving the other satellites, so Directv most certainly did "think of that". But congrats on yet another specious attempt to imply Directv doesn't know what they're doing.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> They may have to wait until IOT is complete, since it is possible if they discover a problem and wish further testing they would instead file for an extension of IOT at 76*.


I thought you were among those (along with a DIRECTV Senior Vice President) that were certain that IOT was completed.


----------



## harsh

bakers12 said:


> Just to be clear, the application shown at this link is for DIRECTV 11, not DIRECTV 14. But it does show a bit about what's going on at the 99 degree slot.


That's what I get for using my browser history. Searching for stuff on the FCC website remains an enormous pain.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> I thought you were among those (along with a DIRECTV Senior Vice President) that were certain that IOT was completed.


How would I know whether it is done or not? You can assume since they're filing to move that it is done now. Directv's previous filings already had a tentative schedule and indicated reaching the final spot at 99 no sooner than Feb. 4. Even if they finished IOT in a week, they would have to sit and wait a while.


----------



## doctor j

TLE #41

10 DIRECTV 14_41
Lon 76.0999° W
Lat 0.0122° N
Alt (km) 35 791.040
Azm 161.1°
Elv 49.4°
RA 18h 22m 32s
Decl -5° 23' 13"
Range (km) 37 117.210
RRt (km/s) -0.001
Vel (km/s) 3.074
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 248.4° (176)
TA 248.3°
Orbit # 40

Name 0 DIRECTV 14_41
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-13 09:44:39
Orbit # at Epoch 40
Inclination 0.032
RA of A. Node 178.252
Eccentricity 0.0002691
Argument of Perigee 207.501
Revs per day 1.00269067
Period 23h 56m 08s (1436.13 min)
Semi-major axis 42 166 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 776 x 35 799 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 156.893
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 41 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A

Sl increase in eccentricity
Orbit a bit higher but not really moving much yet

SOOOON 

Doctor j


----------



## harsh

Still no evidence of the drift application having been granted.

I wonder if they have to complete the SATMOD moves before the FCC grants the STA.

Looking at the TLE projected location of DIRECTV 11, it is at 99.2191W. It is headed for 99.185W +/- .025 (anywhere between 99.210W and 99.160W) and it is headed in the right direction (East).

Spaceway 2 is projected to be at 99.1071W which is closer to its new box at 99.075W +/- .025 (anywhere between 99.100W and 99.050W) but it is headed in the wrong direction (West).


----------



## doctor j

TLE #42

Now it's moving

10 DIRECTV 14_42
Lon 76.9972° W
Lat 0.0270° S
Alt (km) 35 931.820
Azm 162.6°
Elv 49.6°
RA 00h 18m 54s
Decl -5° 24' 48"
Range (km) 37 243.174
RRt (km/s) -0.001
Vel (km/s) 3.069
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 223.8° (159)
TA 223.8°
Orbit # 40

Name 0 DIRECTV 14_42
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-13 15:40:00
Orbit # at Epoch 40
Inclination 0.019
RA of A. Node 93.836
Eccentricity 0.0000271
Argument of Perigee 45.657
Revs per day 0.99757175
Period 24h 03m 30s (1443.50 min)
Semi-major axis 42 310 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 930 x 35 933 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 131.781
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 42 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A

Doctor j


----------



## doctor j

12 days to 99 at present rate

Doctor j


----------



## HoTat2

> _Perigee x Apogee 35 930 x 35 933 km_
> _Eccentricity 0.0000271_
> _Inclination 0.019_


Perhaps I was right earlier: 

That is how drift is established.
Move the satellite to a circular equatorial orbit somewhat higher or lower (higher in this case) than geosynchronous altitude.

Though I wonder why a 23 day drift was requested if only about half that time is needed to reach 99W at this rate?

Might we expect the drift rate be eventually slowed down at an intermediate point between 76 and 99W for some reason?


----------



## slice1900

The 23 day drift probably had some slop built in in case the launch was behind schedule due to weather, the holidays interfered with IOT or they ran into some IOT issues, that sort of thing. 23 days to move 23 degrees assumes a degree per day, but they only said they'd reach their final 99 slot no earlier than Feb. 4. How quickly they get there and what they do to kill time before "officially" taking that spot is left up to them, otherwise the FCC would require more detailed plans than "23 day drift".


----------



## bakers12

It's interesting that D14 is drifting faster than needed at the moment. I would expect that to use more fuel. I assume the drift is under the control of Space Systems/Loral until D14 is delivered to 99W when DIRECTV takes over.


----------



## HoTat2

bakers12 said:


> ... I assume the drift is under the control of Space Systems/Loral until D14 is delivered to 99W when DIRECTV takes over.


No DIRECTV actually contracted with Intelsat for TT&C operations of D14, though via DIRECTV's uplink facilities.

From sec. 11 of the LOA filing.

"11. Arrangement for tracking, telemetry, and control
DIRECTV has contracted with Intelsat Satellite Operations to perform the TT&C 
operations for DIRECTV 14. The Intelsat control center is located in Long Beach, CA. 
The primary TT&C uplink will come from DIRECTV's Castle Rock Broadcast Center, in 
Castle Rock, CO. The backup TT&C uplink will come from DIRECTV's Northeast 
Uplink Facility in New Hampton, NH."

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

bakers12 said:


> It's interesting that D14 is drifting faster than needed at the moment. I would expect that to use more fuel. I assume the drift is under the control of Space Systems/Loral until D14 is delivered to 99W when DIRECTV takes over.


see orbital mechanics, fuel need spend for change altitude only


----------



## inkahauts

bakers12 said:


> It's interesting that D14 is drifting faster than needed at the moment. I would expect that to use more fuel. I assume the drift is under the control of Space Systems/Loral until D14 is delivered to 99W when DIRECTV takes over.


Yeah,. speed is not determining factor in fuel usage. They move up or down from geo orbit and that will speed the sat left and right, in its most basic terms. A small lift or drop and you can speed it up a lot...


----------



## bakers12

HoTat2 said:


> No DIRECTV actually contracted with Intelsat for TT&C operations of D14, though via DIRECTV's uplink facilities.


Isn't it common that the satellite manufacturer has "ownership" until the satellite is delivered to its intended position?



inkahauts said:


> Yeah,. speed is not determining factor in fuel usage. They move up or down from geo orbit and that will speed the sat left and right, in its most basic terms. A small lift or drop and you can speed it up a lot...


Thanks for clarifying this. I figured that a faster drift meant raising the orbit more at the beginning and then lowering it more at the end, not that you would use fuel for the whole drift. What I didn't realize is that these changes in orbit didn't use much fuel.


----------



## P Smith

bakers12 said:


> Isn't it common that the satellite manufacturer has "ownership" until the satellite is delivered to its intended position?
> 
> Thanks for clarifying this.


It would depend on agreement between companies and ability DTV of running command center with qualified personnel and equipment, specialized SW. Most likely, counting how often the events happening, DTV is participating for sure, but full control doing by sat mfg.

You're welcome!


----------



## fleckrj

Even within NASA, the launch control and mission control teams are separate. Launch control has "ownership" until the satellite is parked in its final orbit. At that point, it is turned over to mission control; however, mission control has some involvement prior to taking over ownership, and launch control can be called back to assist if a problem with station keeping occurs.

In this case, I am sure that DirecTV was running most of the IOT with the exception of the testing of thrusters and guidance systems. Those are most likely being controlled by the manufacturer, and the manufacturer most likely retains ownership until a few days after the satellite reaches its final orbit. 

D-12 was launched on December 29, 2009. It reached its final position on May 11, 2010 and began operations on May 13, 2010, but Boeing retained ownership until May 17, 2010, at which time ownership was handed over to DirecTV. D-14 most likely will follow the same procedure (although IOT will likely be shorter), but with Space Systems/Loral instead of Boeing.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:
 

> The 23 day drift probably had some slop built in in case the launch was behind schedule due to weather, the holidays interfered with IOT or they ran into some IOT issues, that sort of thing.


Nonsense. The filing was made towards the end of IOT and I'm betting that President's Day is not one that Intelsat gets off.


----------



## harsh

fleckrj said:


> In this case, I am sure that DirecTV was running most of the IOT with the exception of the testing of thrusters and guidance systems.


Why would DIRECTV take responsibility for something that they contracted to have built and delivered to 99W?

It is surely SSL's responsibility to insure that the satellite does everything that the contract demands. They don't need DIRECTV coming back on them later for something that they didn't know was wrong.


----------



## harsh

bakers12 said:


> It's interesting that D14 is drifting faster than needed at the moment. I would expect that to use more fuel.


In the relative vacuum of space, the only aspects of travel that require fuel are starting and stopping. How much the altitude changes is a matter of how much time transpires between the start and the stop burns, not how much fuel.


----------



## doctor j

HoTat2 said:


> Perhaps I was right earlier:
> 
> That is how drift is established.
> Move the satellite to a circular equatorial orbit somewhat higher or lower (higher in this case) than geosynchronous altitude.
> 
> Though I wonder why a 23 day drift was requested if only about half that time is needed to reach 99W at this rate?
> 
> Might we expect the drift rate be eventually slowed down at an intermediate point between 76 and 99W for some reason?


You are Correct BUT
Note : a slight increase in eccentricity ( about one order of magnitude) with a resultant rise in Apogee followed by a cicularization, decrease in eccentricity and Apogee/Perigee at a higher orbit if you check TLE 40 to 43
Maybe we're both right.

Doctor j


----------



## fleckrj

harsh said:


> Why would DIRECTV take responsibility for something that they contracted to have built and delivered to 99W?
> 
> It is surely SSL's responsibility to insure that the satellite does everything that the contract demands. They don't need DIRECTV coming back on them later for something that they didn't know was wrong.


I would turn that question around. Why would DirecTV take SSL's word that the satellite does everything the contract demands without testing it for themselves? The point of IOT is to determine that everything is working properly post launch, and to do so requires a partnership between the customer (DirecTV) and the manufacturer (SSL).


----------



## harsh

fleckrj said:


> I would turn that question around. Why would DirecTV take SSL's word that the satellite does everything the contract demands without testing it for themselves?


Because that's what you do when you contract to have something done. You create a specification that the contractor must demonstrate (and document) that they met or you are entitled to refuse delivery.


----------



## inkahauts

You really think no DIRECTV rep was there to watch and confirm all the testing?


----------



## HoTat2

inkahauts said:


> You really think no DIRECTV rep was there to watch and confirm all the testing?


IIRC, DIRECTV confimed as much at one point in published correspondence between themselves and SS/L on file with the FCC that they had representative(s) there on site at SS/L throughout the entire construction.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana C

inkahauts said:


> Yeah,. speed is not determining factor in fuel usage. They move up or down from geo orbit and that will speed the sat left and right, in its most basic terms. A small lift or drop and you can speed it up a lot...


Well.....

Technically, the thruster burn changes velocity and that changes the altitude. If you start at GEO, like D14, and speed up you now have more velocity than needed at that altitude, so the satellite rises. Conversely, if the satellite slows down it has less energy than needed and so falls. Once you are at the correct new altitude you slow down or speed up to reach the correct orbital velocity for that altitude. They always have to do another burn to stop rising or falling. At a higher altitude, you are travelling more slowly, so it takes more than a day to complete a rotation and the earth gets slightly ahead of you. As a result you drift westward (relative to a fixed spot on the planet). A lower orbit takes less than a day to complete so you get ahead of the earth and drift eastward. To stay in orbit (not fly off into space or crash to earth) a satellite must maintain a specific velocity, determined by its altitude. Lower orbits require a greater velocity than a higher orbit because you are closer to the center of the gravity well and are pulled toward it more strongly. (See Kepler's second law.)

They allow more than the transit time since it will take some additional time to get it into the assigned box, which they have to do to start transmitting. Also, they usually overshoot the location and then slide back into position as part of the GEO orbital re-insertion, again speeding up or slowing down to rise or fall. I believe there is also an authorization step whereby DirecTV applies for permission to start broadcasting, which is not granted until the satellite is in final position and can take a couple of days.

EDIT: BTW, in case anyone is interested, orbital velocity at geosynchronous altitude is 6,395 mph.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Nonsense. The filing was made towards the end of IOT and I'm betting that President's Day is not one that Intelsat gets off.


I was talking about December holidays, not President's Day or MLK Day.


----------



## bakers12

Diana, I need a little more help here. You said that "if the satellite slows down it ... falls" but also "Lower orbits require a greater velocity than a higher orbit."

Does this mean that at a lower orbit a satellite will travel slower in a straight (OK, curved) line but that its angular velocity (rotations per day) is higher?


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> I was talking about December holidays, not President's Day or MLK Day.


The drift STA was filed was on January 5th -- well after the December holidays. Are you talking about the IOT STA?


----------



## harsh

bakers12 said:


> Does this mean that at a lower orbit a satellite will travel slower in a straight (OK, curved) line but that its angular velocity (rotations per day) is higher?


The angular and linear (tangential) velocities both increase as altitude decreases as the tangential velocity = a constant X the orbital radius X the angular velocity.

In its orbit the moon is traveling at approximately 2,300mph with an angular velocity of 13.1868 degrees per day.

A geo satellite is traveling at 6,935mph with an angular velocity of 361 degrees per day.


----------



## HoTat2

bakers12 said:


> Diana, I need a little more help here. You said that "if the satellite slows down it ... falls" but also "Lower orbits require a greater velocity than a higher orbit."
> 
> Does this mean that at a lower orbit a satellite will travel slower in a straight (OK, curved) line but that its angular velocity (rotations per day) is higher?


I know on the face, it seems counter - intuitive. But what I think really happens is that increasing velocity to achieve a higher orbit or reducing velocity to achieve a lower one actually refers to the needed velocities for moving the satellite from a circular orbit, temporarily into an elliptical transfer orbit, then back to that of a circular orbit at the new altitude like in the illustration of a lower orbit to that of a higher one.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit#/image/File:Hohmann_transfer_orbit.svg

Do a Google search on the "Hohmann Transfer Orbit" for a fuller explanation.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

doctor j said:


> You are Correct BUT
> Note : a slight increase in eccentricity ( about one order of magnitude) with a resultant rise in Apogee followed by a cicularization, decrease in eccentricity and Apogee/Perigee at a higher orbit if you check TLE 40 to 43
> Maybe we're both right.
> 
> Doctor j


True doctor j;

As that appears to be the multi-step process of the Hohmann Transfer Orbit which is the standard maneuver used for changing between two circular satellite orbits.

From circular-to-elliptical-to-circular again as described in my previous post.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## doctor j

TLE #44

Still on tract to be at 99 between 1/25 and 1/26

Name 0 DIRECTV 14_44
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-15 05:42:20
Orbit # at Epoch 42
Inclination 0.022
RA of A. Node 136.014
Eccentricity 0.0000572
Argument of Perigee 4.569
Revs per day 0.99758591
Period 24h 03m 29s (1443.48 min)
Semi-major axis 42 309 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 929 x 35 934 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 339.887
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 44 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A


10 DIRECTV 14_44
Lon 80.0033° W
Lat 0.0126° N
Alt (km) 35 930.380
Azm 167.8°
Elv 50.4°
RA 15h 04m 45s
Decl -5° 22' 32"
Range (km) 37 193.141
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.069
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 84.6° (60)
TA 84.6°
Orbit # 43

Doctor j


----------



## Diana C

HoTat2 said:


> I know on the face, it seems counter - intuitive. But what I think really happens is that increasing velocity to achieve a higher orbit or reducing velocity to achieve a lower one actually refers to the needed velocities for moving the satellite from a circular orbit, temporarily into an elliptical transfer orbit, then back to that of a circular orbit at the new altitude like in the illustration of a lower orbit to that of a higher one.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit#/image/File:Hohmann_transfer_orbit.svg
> Do a Google search on the "Hohmann Transfer Orbit" for a fuller explanation.
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Yes, exactly. In layman's terms, when a satellite in a stable orbit slows down it is technically no longer in orbit, it is in the process of falling back to earth. When it reaches the desired altitude it has to speed up again to reacheive a stable orbit. At the lower altitude the orbital velocity has to be greater than it was at the higher altitude. Since maintaining an orbit is about achieving a velocity that partially counteracts the acceleration of gravity, the further away from the center of mass you are, and so the weaker the gravitational field, the lower orbital velocity becomes. In reality, an 'orbit' is falling with just the right amount of momentum such that you keep missing the body you are falling towards.

It all seems counter-intuitive because we are used to an environment were gravity acts on everything equally so for most day to day activities the acceleration due to gravity can be ignored. But as Einstein famously has shown in the theory of relativity, gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable. The changes in altitude involved here are so much larger that the varying strength of gravity has an effect. Part of the trick in designing efficient transfer orbits is getting gravity to do as much of the accelerating or decelerating as possible.

By the time you get out to the distance of the moon, orbital velocity is down to about 2,288 mph, only about 40% of the orbital velocity at GEO altitude.


----------



## Diana C

One other point...

All GEO satellites are in very slightly eccentric (i.e not perfectly circular) orbits. The more eccentric the orbit, the less geostationary the satellite will be, while still being geosynchronous. That's why they wander about a bit - the east/west drift caused by the satellite changing altitude without changing speed (which causes drift as noted in previous posts) caused by eccentricity, and north/south movement caused by a small inclination.

Geosynchronous: one spacecraft orbit equals one day

Geostationary: the spacecraft stays fixed in the sky at all times

DirecTVs satellites are geosynchronous, and very nearly, but not exactly, geostationary. Their small amount of movement is immaterial since they stay within the focal cone of a dish pointed their way.


----------



## HoTat2

Diana C said:


> Yes, exactly. In layman's terms, when a satellite in a stable orbit slows down it is technically no longer in orbit, it is in the process of falling back to earth. When it reaches the desired altitude it has to speed up again to reacheive a stable orbit. At the lower altitude the orbital velocity has to be greater than it was at the higher altitude. Since maintaining an orbit is about achieving a velocity that partially counteracts the acceleration of gravity, the further away from the center of mass you are, and so the weaker the gravitational field, the lower orbital velocity becomes. In reality, an 'orbit' is falling with just the right amount of momentum such that you keep missing the body you are falling towards. ....


True enough Diana;

Though in a note of correction, confusingly the Hohmann Transfer Orbit states that when a satellite is moved from a higher circular orbit to a lower one, the satellite's velocity must actually be reduced again at the injection point into the lower orbit to achieve a circular orbit at the lower altitude. And vice-versa for the case of going from a lower to higher circular orbit.

The only thing I can see that may hold a clue to account for this apparent contradiction is that looking closely at the diagram, I notice the satellite is injected at or near the perigee point of the transfer ellipse where it is moving fastest and therefore needs to reduce its speed to enter into a circular orbit at a lower altitude. Whereas, when going to a higher orbit the injection point is now at the apogee of the transfer ellipse where it's moving slowest and thereby needs an increase in velocity to enter a circular orbit at the higher orbit altitude.

What do you think?


----------



## Diana C

Correct again. I was simplifying things and really only comparing (nearly) circular orbits at different altitudes. In the real world we would need to consider the shape of the orbit. Transfer orbits are elliptical and therefore the total velocity of the spacecraft is not constant, with the greatest speed at perigee (low point) and the slowest at apogee (high point). The speed at perigee is greater than the (circular) orbital velocity at that altitude (which is why it climbs from perigee), so the satellite must be slowed down to "circularize" the orbit. Likewise, at apogee the spacecraft is traveling slower than required for a circular orbit at that altitude (which is why it falls from apogee) and so must be accelerated if you want to circularize the orbit at that altitude. But the (circular) orbital velocity at the apogee altitude is still less than the velocity at perigee altitude. There is a point in the orbit where the speed of the craft is exactly the same as that needed for a circular orbit at its current altitude, but at that point it has a large vertical motion and would usually require a longer thruster burn to kill that motion than is typically needed to speed it up a bit at apogee or slow it down at perigee.


----------



## Ken984

TLE 46.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-16 06:22:05
Orbit # at Epoch 43
Inclination 0.015
RA of A. Node 121.879
Eccentricity 0.0000344
Argument of Perigee 23.190
Revs per day 0.99755801
Period 24h 03m 31s (1443.52 min)
Semi-major axis 42 310 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 930 x 35 933 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 344.437
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 46 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary



1DIRECTV 14
Lon 82.0334° W
Lat 0.0014° S
Alt (km) 35 931.900
Azm 278.6°
Elv -14.7°
RA 16h 41m 50s
Decl -6° 41' 59"
Range (km) 43 482.763
RRt (km/s) 0.002
Vel (km/s) 3.069
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 110.4° (78)
TA 110.4°
Orbit # 44
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Oph


----------



## HoTat2

Ken984 said:


> _TLE 46._
> 
> _MA (phase) 110.4° (78)_
> _TA 110.4°_


Again, what does this "MA (phase)" and "TA" angles refer to?


----------



## Diana C

TA is true anomaly and MA is mean anomaly. Both are measures of a spacecraft's movement along its orbit as related to apogee, perigee, eccentricity, mass and distance from the center of the planet.

The phase value is the MA in units of 1/256 of the orbit instead of degrees (256 being 2^8, so this allows the mean anomaly value to be stored in a single byte).

Edit: Many of the terms used in orbital mechanics are explained here: http://www.amsat.org/amsat/keps/kepmodel.html


----------



## HoTat2

I see;

OK thanks, and for the link as well.

The first list of terms refers to the orbital values of D14 at the epoch time of the TLE.

And the second list of items must refer to the predicted orbital numbers for D14 at the current time the poster's orbit program computed them based on the lastest TLE release above which was entered into the program. That's why the listed Mean Anomaly is different than the TLE's.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Ken984

TLE 47. Slow and steady.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-19 07:19:36
Orbit # at Epoch 46
Inclination 0.020
RA of A. Node 128.432
Eccentricity 0.0000291
Argument of Perigee 19.724
Revs per day 0.99754126
Period 24h 03m 32s (1443.53 min)
Semi-major axis 42 310 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 931 x 35 934 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 353.056
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 47 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary


1DIRECTV 14
Lon 87.7618° W
Lat 0.0065° S
Alt (km) 35 932.680
Azm 283.2°
Elv -18.0°
RA 18h 18m 01s
Decl -6° 38' 56"
Range (km) 43 845.984
RRt (km/s) 0.002
Vel (km/s) 3.069
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 131.2° (93)
TA 131.2°
Orbit # 47
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Sct


----------



## slice1900

Halfway there! It will get to 99 a lot sooner than Feb. 4, but if as Diana mentioned it needs to go past its final destination and backtrack that may be why this is a 23 day process.


----------



## HoTat2

Well, perhaps a small, but telling change here...

Unless it's always been this way and I simply didn't realize it. At least on the Genie, they're apparently beginning to make room in the signal strength screens for D14.

I notice that 99(c) now reads as "99(cb)."

Though no expected "99(ca)" has appeared yet.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

I guess they'll have to push out the first firmware update for the H20 since Sept 2013 pretty soon


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Halfway there! It will get to 99 a lot sooner than Feb. 4, but if as Diana mentioned it needs to go past its final destination and backtrack that may be why this is a 23 day process.


Yep,

Still moving west at about 1.9° per day steady and surely. ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> Halfway there! It will get to 99 a lot sooner than Feb. 4, but if as Diana mentioned it needs to go past its final destination and backtrack that may be why this is a 23 day process.


It is also possible that they will get there sooner because that was the most efficient orbital solution. The slower solutions are not always more efficient than faster ones, particularly if you can get gravity to do more of the work. It all depends on the various vectors.


----------



## HarleyD

HoTat2 said:


> Well, perhaps a small, but telling change here...
> 
> Unless it's always been this way and I simply didn't realize it. At least on the Genie, they're apparently beginning to make room in the signal strength screens for D14.
> 
> I notice that 99(c) now reads as "99(cb)."
> 
> Though no expected "99(ca)" has appeared yet.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Still just 99(c) and 99(s) on my HR24 and it was still that way on one of my HR21s the other night too (got a trouble communicating with dish error lying in bed two nights ago and went through the screens)


----------



## HoTat2

HarleyD said:


> Still just 99(c) and 99(s) on my HR24 and it was still that way on one of my HR21s the other night too (got a trouble communicating with dish error lying in bed two nights ago and went through the screens)


Yeah, same here ....

Got 5 HD DVRs here including a Genie.

Apparently its only on the Genie so far ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## TheRatPatrol

So its moving to 99? I guess it didn't stay that long at 74, which means all the testing went well?


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah, same here ....
> 
> Got 5 HD DVRs here including a Genie.
> 
> Apparently its only on the Genie so far ...


I thought about it a bit after I posted and wondered if this might be part of the satellite data a receiver downloads when it boots. But I tried rebooting a H20 and H24 and both still show only 99c. So I guess firmware is required for this change.


----------



## harsh

TheRatPatrol said:


> So its moving to 99? I guess it didn't stay that long at 74, which means all the testing went well?


DIRECTV 14 settled at 76W on or about December 18th and it departed for 99W on or about January 13th.

I would imagine that they can't reasonably test and/or dial in spot beam coverage until the bird is at its final location.


----------



## caseyf5

slice1900 said:


> I guess they'll have to push out the first firmware update for the H20 since Sept 2013 pretty soon


Hello slice1900, there is another possibility. Due to the age of the older receivers/DVR'ss they might replace them with more modern units. It could also be used to replace all of the SD units with HD units at the same time! A smaller selection of units to keep in stock.


----------



## studechip

My HR24-500 has 99cb.


----------



## HarleyD

caseyf5 said:


> Hello slice1900, there is another possibility. Due to the age of the older receivers/DVR'ss they might replace them with more modern units. It could also be used to replace all of the SD units with HD units at the same time! A smaller selection of units to keep in stock.


Since all the existing SD boxes have to see is at 101 I don't know about that. They won't need new firmware because they don't need to see the 99 or 103 slots. Probably a lot of them still have the old pizza pan dishes too. There's more SD only subscribers out there than any of us "technophiles" appreciate.

Any markets that need MPEG4 compatible equipment to get LIL from another slot were addressed a while ago.

They may opt to replace the H20s...or they may just push a bare bones update to allow them to see the new bird at 99. The same thing is going to come up again in a few months when D15 lights up.


----------



## slice1900

caseyf5 said:


> Hello slice1900, there is another possibility. Due to the age of the older receivers/DVR'ss they might replace them with more modern units. It could also be used to replace all of the SD units with HD units at the same time! A smaller selection of units to keep in stock.


Adding the additional satellite to the signal strength screen is a very tiny change - not worth the hassle of replacing the hundreds of thousands of H20s that probably remain. Though I suppose they don't need to make 99ca visible in the signal strength screen since the guide data / system tables would still carry the necessary data for them to be able to tune to channels there. Still, given how minor of a change this is I feel it is a matter of when, not if.


----------



## slice1900

HarleyD said:


> Since all the existing SD boxes have to see is at 101 I don't know about that. They won't need new firmware because they don't need to see the 99 or 103 slots. Probably a lot of them still have the old pizza pan dishes too. There's more SD only subscribers out there than any of us "technophiles" appreciate.
> 
> Any markets that need MPEG4 compatible equipment to get LIL from another slot were addressed a while ago.
> 
> They may opt to replace the H20s...or they may just push a bare bones update to allow them to see the new bird at 99. The same thing is going to come up again in a few months when D15 lights up.


D15 doesn't add any new bands HD receivers will use. The RDBS band it (and D14) adds will only be used for 4K. None of the current receivers will ever have signal strength screens added for RDBS, IMHO.


----------



## gpg

My HR21-200 has a 99(cb) label on signal strength.


----------



## slice1900

gpg said:


> My HR21-200 has a 99(cb) label on signal strength.


What version firmware do you have? I'd guess it is either newer than NR, or Directv is in the process of pushing out a new NR as we speak. I only checked one of my H24s, it is possible some are running a newer NR version...


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> D15 doesn't add any new bands HD receivers will use. The RDBS band it (and D14) adds will only be used for 4K. None of the current receivers will ever have signal strength screens added for RDBS, IMHO.


I have to say, I don't think I fully believe that, that none of the current receivers can receive a signal from a bss band sat transponder. I think they probably could, its more if the dish and swim can IMHO.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> I have to say, I don't think I fully believe that, that none of the current receivers can receive a signal from a bss band sat transponder. I think they probably could, its more if the dish and swim can IMHO.


That depends on the modulation used. I'm betting RDBS will use DVB-S2X modulation to make the most efficient use of these transponders, which will guarantee current receivers can't see it - any more than the SD receivers (DSS/DVB-S only) could see the 99/103 transponders (DVB-S2)

If they don't use DVB-S2X they still wouldn't have any reason to enable HD receivers to see those transponders if they will only be used to carry 4K. Those receivers won't be able to do anything with the 4K, so why have them show up in the satellite screen? But my money is on them using DVB-S2X, so they can use 5% roll off instead of 20%, new FEC ratios, bonding, etc.


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> That depends on the modulation used. I'm betting RDBS will use DVB-S2X modulation to make the most efficient use of these transponders, which will guarantee current receivers can't see it - any more than the SD receivers (DSS/DVB-S only) could see the 99/103 transponders (DVB-S2)
> 
> If they don't use DVB-S2X they still wouldn't have any reason to enable HD receivers to see those transponders if they will only be used to carry 4K. Those receivers won't be able to do anything with the 4K, so why have them show up in the satellite screen? But my money is on them using DVB-S2X, so they can use 5% roll off instead of 20%, new FEC ratios, bonding, etc.


They are delivering 4k now via sat.. I just dont think they are going to wipe out all their current genies since they do 4k now, via the clients... But we will see. I still think the BSS will be used for more than just 4k too though.


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> That depends on the modulation used. I'm betting RDBS will use DVB-S2X modulation to make the most efficient use of these transponders, which will guarantee current receivers can't see it - any more than the SD receivers (DSS/DVB-S only) could see the 99/103 transponders (DVB-S2)
> 
> If they don't use DVB-S2X they still wouldn't have any reason to enable HD receivers to see those transponders if they will only be used to carry 4K. Those receivers won't be able to do anything with the 4K, so why have them show up in the satellite screen? But my money is on them using DVB-S2X, so they can use 5% roll off instead of 20%, new FEC ratios, bonding, etc.


I'm accepting yor bet! 
They will not use DVB-S2X.


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> What version firmware do you have? I'd guess it is either newer than NR, or Directv is in the process of pushing out a new NR as we speak. I only checked one of my H24s, it is possible some are running a newer NR version...


I am reasonably sure that new satellite settings can be added without a full scale firmware release. All that is involved is new signaling to the SWM. That is, I believe, in a separate piece of code (I even think the version number shows up on the DVR status list, though I don't recall how it is labeled other than mentioning SWM).


----------



## Diana C

P Smith said:


> I'm accepting yor bet!
> They will not use DVB-S2X.


I am with Mr Smith on this.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> They are delivering 4k now via sat.. I just dont think they are going to wipe out all their current genies since they do 4k now, via the clients... But we will see. I still think the BSS will be used for more than just 4k too though.


They're delivering that 4K VOD using Ka transponders - and will have 16 more Ka tpns to play with soon, which will support further 4K VOD, 4K testing/demo loops and even a few full time 4K channels before they to start using the RDBS tpns.

By the time they need to start using those, DVB-S2X chipsets will be readily available. Of course, before we worry about seeing RDBS use or its inclusion in signal screens, we'll need LNBs able to receive it!


----------



## jasonblair

HarleyD said:


> Since all the existing SD boxes have to see is at 101 I don't know about that. They won't need new firmware because they don't need to see the 99 or 103 slots. Probably a lot of them still have the old pizza pan dishes too. There's more SD only subscribers out there than any of us "technophiles" appreciate.


Actually, those of us who rely on the SD 101 feed are VERY MUCH "technophiles." The high-end RV camping community, as well as limousine/charter companies, and others rely on the SD feeds. Our Yukon Denali can receive DirecTV while going down the road, but only the SD Ku band. The HD feeds use the Ka band, which requires the dish to be too closely aligned for in-motion use. You can only pick up 99 and 103 once you are parked. Now if DirecTV would switch their HD channels from Ka to Ku, then I think everyone would be happy to drop the SD feeds.


----------



## JosephB

jasonblair said:


> Actually, those of us who rely on the SD 101 feed are VERY MUCH "technophiles." The high-end RV camping community, as well as limousine/charter companies, and others rely on the SD feeds. Our Yukon Denali can receive DirecTV while going down the road, but only the SD Ku band. The HD feeds use the Ka band, which requires the dish to be too closely aligned for in-motion use. You can only pick up 99 and 103 once you are parked. Now if DirecTV would switch their HD channels from Ka to Ku, then I think everyone would be happy to drop the SD feeds.


I'm sure that is in the cards, eventually. They're on Step 1a of that process by starting to only do HD installs, regardless of customer TV or package.


----------



## slice1900

jasonblair said:


> Actually, those of us who rely on the SD 101 feed are VERY MUCH "technophiles." The high-end RV camping community, as well as limousine/charter companies, and others rely on the SD feeds. Our Yukon Denali can receive DirecTV while going down the road, but only the SD Ku band. The HD feeds use the Ka band, which requires the dish to be too closely aligned for in-motion use. You can only pick up 99 and 103 once you are parked. Now if DirecTV would switch their HD channels from Ka to Ku, then I think everyone would be happy to drop the SD feeds.


They may change some of them to Ku and be receivable via 101, but they can't do it for all of them. They could cover the "most popular" channels though.

There may be another option by the time SD gets switched off though. The technology now exists to make a flat satellite antenna that doesn't need to be aimed - the beamforming is done electronically. Directv has been talking one of the companies with that technology, Kymeta, so maybe that'll be the solution.

Just a little panel on your RV or Limo's roof and you're good to go! In Europe some of these flat panel antennas are already in use and cost like 100 euros, so they're pretty cost effective. Maybe not to the point where they could replace the satellite dish for a typical install, at least not now, but certainly better the current options for built in satellite on moving vehicles.


----------



## JosephB

slice1900 said:


> They may change some of them to Ku and be receivable via 101, but they can't do it for all of them. They could cover the "most popular" channels though.
> 
> There may be another option by the time SD gets switched off though. The technology now exists to make a flat satellite antenna that doesn't need to be aimed - the beamforming is done electronically. Directv has been talking one of the companies with that technology, Kymeta, so maybe that'll be the solution.
> 
> Just a little panel on your RV or Limo's roof and you're good to go! In Europe some of these flat panel antennas are already in use and cost like 100 euros, so they're pretty cost effective. Maybe not to the point where they could replace the satellite dish for a typical install, at least not now, but certainly better the current options for built in satellite on moving vehicles.


I think the most prudent thing would be for them to put the most channels on Ku that meet the most packages...so, lowest tier channels until they're all on Ku, then the next tier, and so on until they're out of space. Put any premium, PPV, or sports on Ka and I'm willing to bet they'd be able to get a great percentage of what people would expect to get on existing Ku setups into that space.


----------



## cypherx

slice1900 said:


> They may change some of them to Ku and be receivable via 101, but they can't do it for all of them. They could cover the "most popular" channels though.
> 
> There may be another option by the time SD gets switched off though. The technology now exists to make a flat satellite antenna that doesn't need to be aimed - the beamforming is done electronically. .


Is that how SiriusXM works? Always amazed how the antenna is so small and does not have to be "aimed" in any particular direction.


----------



## slice1900

JosephB said:


> I think the most prudent thing would be for them to put the most channels on Ku that meet the most packages...so, lowest tier channels until they're all on Ku, then the next tier, and so on until they're out of space. Put any premium, PPV, or sports on Ka and I'm willing to bet they'd be able to get a great percentage of what people would expect to get on existing Ku setups into that space.


There's enough bandwidth from 101 to fit choice, or maybe the next level up, and then add a selection of the most popular channels from higher level / extra packages. Just fitting the biggest package in without regard to popularity seems dumb to me. Why would they not want to make HBOHD and SHOHD available to RVers who only had a 101 dish? Why wouldn't they want to make NFLST available on Sunday, for tailgaters?

I'm sure there are other examples of popular channels, and some more popular RSNs like YES might draw enough to be considered as well. Simply going as many package levels up as possible misses a lot of channels people care about. People who pay for HBO or NFLST would want to be able to watch them - Directv will want to make sure the customers who spend the most are taken care of.


----------



## slice1900

cypherx said:


> Is that how SiriusXM works? Always amazed how the antenna is so small and does not have to be "aimed" in any particular direction.


No, it uses a simple dipole antenna. It is using S band - frequencies similar to GPS and cellular, which are much easier to receive. Audio also uses a fraction of the bandwidth video does, so it is easier to add additional error correction as needed to compensate for a less 'ideal' antenna. Your phone is able to receive GPS with an even smaller antenna.


----------



## P Smith

You guys got too far offtrack - Sirius, GPS, reallocation channels - how insane of you ?... it's time get back to D-14!!!


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> You guys got too far offtrack - Sirius, GPS, reallocation channels - how insane of you ?... it's time get back to D-14!!!


Yeah ....

In the meantime D14 is passing over the western part of the Galapagos Islands now approaching 91W.

4-5 more days to 99W at the current drift rate of ~1.9° per!! 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## hdtvfan0001

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah ....
> 
> In the meantime D14 is passing over the western part of the Galapagos Islands now approaching 91W.
> 
> 4-5 more days to 99W at the current drift rate of ~1.9° per!!


Great news!


----------



## Ken984

TLE 48.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-21 07:45:46
Orbit # at Epoch 48
Inclination 0.023
RA of A. Node 130.500
Eccentricity 0.0000285
Argument of Perigee 12.294
Revs per day 0.99753397
Period 24h 03m 33s (1443.55 min)
Semi-major axis 42 311 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 931 x 35 934 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 3.175
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 48 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary


1DIRECTV 14
Lon 91.4942° W
Lat 0.0013° S
Alt (km) 35 932.910
Azm 286.3°
Elv -20.1°
RA 18h 10m 11s
Decl -6° 36' 34"
Range (km) 44 074.682
RRt (km/s) 0.002
Vel (km/s) 3.069
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 134.5° (95)
TA 134.5°
Orbit # 48
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Ser


----------



## cypherx

Wow way ahead of time. Things must be going smoothly. I was unable to check if the new signal screen was in my Genie last night because two other recordings were going on. The UI didn't give me an option to just use one of the unused tuners, it wanted to stop the recordings and use all 5. Strange because you don't see 5 signal levels come in at the same time, so its not like it even effectively uses them to get all the transponder levels faster.


----------



## HoTat2

Ken984 said:


> TLE 48.
> 
> ... Azm 286.3°
> Elv -20.1°


BTW, what is this location in the orbital program listing all these strange pointing coordinates to D14 anyhow?

Someplace along the (0°) Greenwich meridian somewhat south of the equator or something?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Ken984

HoTat2 said:


> BTW, what is this location in the orbital program listing all these strange pointing coordinates to D14 anyhow?
> 
> Someplace along the (0°) Greenwich meridian somewhat south of the equator or something?
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


I could not tell you what it means. DianaC or LameLefty probably can shed some light on it though.


----------



## bakers12

HoTat2 said:


> BTW, what is this location in the orbital program listing all these strange pointing coordinates to D14 anyhow?
> 
> Someplace along the (0°) Greenwich meridian somewhat south of the equator or something?


The azimuth and elevation are calculated by the Orbitron software based on where you tell it you are located. These numbers tell you how to aim your dish. In this case, the satellite is below the horizon.

By default, Orbitron picks some place in Europe, which would probably give you readings like these. Near Chicago, Orbitron gives me these numbers:
Azm 185.7°
Elv 41.5°

EDIT: Checking further, Orbitron comes with three cities in Poland installed.


----------



## HoTat2

bakers12 said:


> The azimuth and elevation are calculated by the Orbitron software based on where you tell it you are located. These numbers tell you how to aim your dish. In this case, the satellite is below the horizon.
> 
> By default, Orbitron picks some place in Europe, which would probably give you readings like these. Near Chicago, Orbitron gives me these numbers:
> Azm 185.7°
> Elv 41.5°
> 
> EDIT: Checking further, Orbitron comes with three cities in Poland installed.


Got it, thanks;

As I suspected, Ken simply doesn't have his actual location entered into the program and its just defaulting to a preloaded one that comes with the program.

Unless he really is in Europe somewhere .... 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

cypherx said:


> Wow way ahead of time. Things must be going smoothly. I was unable to check if the new signal screen was in my Genie last night because two other recordings were going on. The UI didn't give me an option to just use one of the unused tuners, it wanted to stop the recordings and use all 5. Strange because you don't see 5 signal levels come in at the same time, so its not like it even effectively uses them to get all the transponder levels faster.


Except the signal system lets you change to any tuner as well as any sat to test signals on all tuners and all satelites.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> BTW, what is this location in the orbital program listing all these strange pointing coordinates to D14 anyhow?


Orbitron defaults to Torun, Poland.


----------



## Ken984

Not in Europe. Never bothered to set anything up in Orbitron for my location. But I will do that before i post the next TLE.

Here are the results with my location.

1DIRECTV 14
Lon 92.1538° W
Lat 0.0265° S
Alt (km) 35 932.270
Azm 177.0°
Elv 52.2°
RA 02h 53m 46s
Decl -5° 17' 04"
Range (km) 37 084.921
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.069
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 260.4° (184)
TA 260.4°
Orbit # 48
Mag (illum) ? (58%)
Constellation Eri


----------



## Ken984

Tle 49.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-22 08:27:25
Orbit # at Epoch 49
Inclination 0.024
RA of A. Node 133.167
Eccentricity 0.0000296
Argument of Perigee 6.482
Revs per day 0.99753040
Period 24h 03m 33s (1443.55 min)
Semi-major axis 42 311 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 931 x 35 934 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 15.824
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 49 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary

1DIRECTV 14
Lon 93.1985° W
Lat 0.0193° N
Alt (km) 35 932.480
Azm 178.9°
Elv 52.3°
RA 16h 18m 36s
Decl -5° 13' 57"
Range (km) 37 079.861
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.069
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 104.9° (74)
TA 104.9°
Orbit # 49
Mag (illum) ? (26%)
Constellation Oph


----------



## doctor j

Still on tract for arrival close to 99 degrees on the 25th

Doctor j


----------



## Ken984

TLE 50.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-23 08:31:50
Orbit # at Epoch 50
Inclination 0.026
RA of A. Node 133.970
Eccentricity 0.0000307
Argument of Perigee 3.486
Revs per day 0.99752831
Period 24h 03m 34s (1443.57 min)
Semi-major axis 42 311 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 931 x 35 934 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 18.234
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 50 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary


1DIRECTV 14
Lon 95.3339° W
Lat 0.0061° S
Alt (km) 35 933.420
Azm 182.9°
Elv 52.2°
RA 19h 37m 14s
Decl -5° 15' 40"
Range (km) 37 084.465
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.069
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 157.1° (111)
TA 157.1°
Orbit # 50
Mag (illum) ? (4%)
Constellation Aql


----------



## cypherx

Wow almost there!


----------



## jay22381

Just about there


----------



## HoTat2

Yep,

Sometime tomorrow barring any last minute changes. ....

Presently very near 97W and still drifting west at ~1.9° per, much as it has since the beginning of the transfer.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Oli74

HoTat2 said:


> Yep,
> 
> Sometime tomorrow barring any last minute changes. ....
> 
> Presently very near 97W and still drifting west at ~1.9° per, much as it has since the beginning of the transfer.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Once it gets to the destination how long will be be active and running?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ken984

TLE 51

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-24 09:14:02
Orbit # at Epoch 51
Inclination 0.026
RA of A. Node 135.861
Eccentricity 0.0000361
Argument of Perigee 354.895
Revs per day 0.99752506
Period 24h 03m 34s (1443.57 min)
Semi-major axis 42 311 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 931 x 35 934 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 34.567
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 51 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary


1DIRECTV 14
Lon 97.0305° W
Lat 0.0162° N
Alt (km) 35 933.270
Azm 186.0°
Elv 52.1°
RA 17h 17m 12s
Decl -5° 14' 05"
Range (km) 37 090.427
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.069
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 129.0° (91)
TA 129.0°
Orbit # 51
Mag (illum) ? (18%)
Constellation Oph


----------



## stoutman

Oli74 said:


> Once it gets to the destination how long will be be active and running?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In the past it was a week to 10 days. We would see activity from those who can view test channels and also by scanning to see the bird on our sets. Always a fun week. Like christmas eve or Festivus Day I should say....


----------



## ladannen

Looking good!


----------



## slice1900

According to the FCC filing it is supposed to reach its assigned slot near 99 "no earlier than" Feb. 4th so just because it hits 99 tomorrow doesn't mean it is going to park there right away.


----------



## harsh

stoutman said:


> In the past it was a week to 10 days.


What past are you recalling?


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> According to the FCC filing it is supposed to reach its assigned slot near 99 "no earlier than" Feb. 4th so just because it hits 99 tomorrow doesn't mean it is going to park there right away.


Kind of invalidates filings as a reliable tool for predicting, doesn't it?

Shuffling around to burn calendar only wastes fuel.


----------



## stoutman

harsh said:


> What past are you recalling?


I have been watching these babies park since the days of dbsforums...

Heck, I have been a customer since Internet came alive

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Kind of invalidates filings as a reliable tool for predicting, doesn't it?
> 
> Shuffling around to burn calendar only wastes fuel.


Who says the smallest fuel consumption is moving straight from 76 to 99? This isn't a car with brakes traveling along a road.


----------



## Diana C

It will likely pass 99 by a couple of degrees and then come back more slowly than it has so far. The satellite needs to speed up a bit (its current period is more than a day) and they will likely use gravity to do it.


----------



## P Smith

The maneuver ("hook") is not always nessesary, it's depend of free space around target point.


----------



## harsh

stoutman said:


> I have been watching these babies park since the days of dbsforums...


Did you step away from watching during the Ka CONUS birds that took from 4-6 months after launch?

As the closest example (a true equatorial launch) I cite DIRECTV 11 that launched on March 19th, 2008 and went into service on July 31, 2008 -- four months and 12 days later.

DIRECTV 14 is almost 1 month and 19 days in. Do you suppose that Space Systems/Loral is so much faster than Boeing that they could shave off two and a half months? Looking back, there was the BSS test detour (moved to a second test slot at 100.7W) that DIRECTV 11 took and that was just over a month and getting to the original test orbit took over two months. Maybe Boeing really is that "conservative".


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> The maneuver ("hook") is not always nessesary, it's depend of free space around target point.


In this case, the target is hiding behind a row of three existing birds -- two of which had to be moved to make room.


----------



## Ken984

TLE 52. Eccentricity is up from 300 range to 800+

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-24 14:18:29
Orbit # at Epoch 51
Inclination 0.017
RA of A. Node 124.865
*Eccentricity 0.0000839*
Argument of Perigee 340.656
Revs per day 0.99752359
Period 24h 03m 34s (1443.57 min)
Semi-major axis 42 311 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 929 x 35 936 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 135.718
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 52 / 1 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary

1DIRECTV 14
Lon 98.8929° W
Lat 0.0105° N
Alt (km) 35 935.470
Azm 189.5°
Elv 51.9°
RA 17h 03m 06s
Decl -5° 14' 20"
Range (km) 37 107.571
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.069
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 151.0° (107)
TA 151.0°
Orbit # 52
Mag (illum) ? (20%)
Constellation Oph


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Who says the smallest fuel consumption is moving straight from 76 to 99?


Johannes Kepler.

Going direct takes two orbit changes (up-stop, down-stop) and a hook takes at least three (up-stop, down-stop, up-stop).


----------



## Sixto

Sixto said:


> D10Launched: 7/7/2007
> LIVE: 9/26/2007
> About a week delay due to spot beam and authorization issues
> Thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/85005-d10-satellite-tech-thread-hd-testing-schedule-press-releases-location
> [*]D11
> Launched: 3/19/2008
> LIVE: 7/31/2008
> About a 6-8 week delay due to BSS testing. D11 got to it's first test location 5/25/2008
> Thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/115478-sixto-report-d11-status-in-operation-july-31-2008/#entry1465084
> [*]D12
> Launched: 12/28/2009
> LIVE: 5/19/2010
> Delayed due to D10 amelioration
> Thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/155388-sixtoreport-d12-satellite-info-in-post1-live/#entry2143169


The links are in this thread, for D10/D11/D12.

D12 went "live" within 10 days of getting to it's final resting location.

Every TLE is here at DBSTalk. The formatting is a little off due to the switch from vBulletin, but the data is all there.

It's best to start with the D12 link above, it summarizes D12, and has links and compares to the other launches.

D11 went "live" fairly quickly after testing as well.

If we're basing our assumptions on the previous launches, I'd say D14 is going to go "live" very soon, at least for TEST channels.


----------



## stoutman

Sixto said:


> The links are in this thread, for D10/D11/D12.
> 
> D12 went "live" within 10 days of getting to it's final resting location.
> 
> Every TLE is here at DBSTalk. The formatting is a little off due to the switch from vBulletin, but the data is all there.
> 
> It's best to start with the D12 link above, it summarizes D12, and has links and compares to the other launches.
> 
> D11 went "live" fairly quickly after testing as well.
> 
> If we're basing our assumptions on the previous launches, I'd say D14 is going to go "live" very soon, at least for TEST channels.


Thank You

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## HoTat2

Ken984 said:


> TLE 52. Eccentricity is up from 300 range to 800+ ...
> 
> *Eccentricity 0.0000839* ...


Starting to apply the brakes and begin the transfer ellipse back to geostationary altitude?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

Sixto said:


> D12 went "live" within 10 days of getting to it's final resting location.


Are you dismissing that it took five months and three weeks to get that point and that they were in somewhat of a panic on DIRECTV 10?


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Are you dismissing that it took five months and three weeks to get that point and that they were in somewhat of a panic on DIRECTV 10?


There was a reason for that "delay" ... and it was not to increase the delivery of fear, uncertainty and doubt by people who would be better off sitting back and watching rather than trying to report problems that do not exist.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> Starting to apply the brakes and begin the transfer ellipse back to geostationary altitude?


I think that people are making too much of eccentricity and ellipses. They can't have the satellite crossing the Clarke Belt very often as there are eleven satellites within four degrees.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> I think that people are making too much of eccentricity and ellipses. They can't have the satellite crossing the Clarke Belt very often as there are eleven satellites within four degrees.


Or what? 1800+ miles?


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> I think that people are making too much of eccentricity and ellipses. They can't have the satellite crossing the Clarke Belt very often as there are eleven satellites within four degrees.


The movement to a transfer orbit, in this case to effect a satellite's move to a higher to lower altitude, does not necessarily mean it has the cross the Clarke belt.

But to return to it.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Sixto

harsh said:


> Are you dismissing that it took five months and three weeks to get that point and that they were in somewhat of a panic on DIRECTV 10?


Yes, not applicable.

Testing done, D14 is on it's way to it final location.


----------



## studechip

Wouldn't you think that someone that got hit with a 2x4 virtually every time he spoke up would choose to remain silent?


----------



## fleckrj

harsh said:


> Johannes Kepler.
> 
> Going direct takes two orbit changes (up-stop, down-stop) and a hook takes at least three (up-stop, down-stop, up-stop).


The number of burns is not nearly as important as the duration of the burns. Besides that, the amount of remaining fuel is not likely to be the limiting factor in the life of the satellite.


----------



## slice1900

fleckrj said:


> The number of burns is not nearly as important as the duration of the burns. Besides that, the amount of remaining fuel is not likely to be the limiting factor in the life of the satellite.


Exactly. The minimum burn path to move from 76 to 99 will undoubtedly make use of gravity assist at various points, and even if more (shorter) burns are required it will add up to less fuel.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Exactly. The minimum burn path to move from 76 to 99 will undoubtedly make use of gravity assist at various points, and even if more (shorter) burns are required it will add up to less fuel.


I bet you couldn't be more wrong. Gravity and centripetal acceleration are used wherever possible because they are always in play. To suggest that they are only used in a particular maneuver that supports your argument is not reasonable.

Unless they are in a blind panic to power the bird into place, the only events that require force are starting and stopping (in the polar coordinate sense) and the more often you do that, the more energy you expend. Physics is not suspended for the hook or any other maneuver.


----------



## cypherx

Because it's so close, is it just me or are others also checking this thread every hour for someone to post the latest TLE ?


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> I bet you couldn't be more wrong. Gravity and centripetal acceleration are used wherever possible because they are always in play. To suggest that they are only used in a particular maneuver that supports your argument is not reasonable.
> 
> Unless they are in a blind panic to power the bird into place, the only events that require force are starting and stopping (in the polar coordinate sense) and the more often you do that, the more energy you expend. Physics is not suspended for the hook or any other maneuver.


Five two second burns require the same fuel as one ten second burn. Apparently you don't grasp that simple concept.


----------



## HoTat2

cypherx said:


> Because it's so close, is it just me or are others also checking this thread every hour for someone to post the latest TLE ?


Notwithstanding perhaps some fine tuning to get it precisely at 99.235W +/- .025 degrees, I think there has now been more than ample time for D14 to have arrived at its operational location.

Yet no TLE has been posted since #52 yesterday morning.

So I guess only DIRECTV, Intelsat, reps. from SS/L, and NORAD know for sure exactly where D14 is at the moment.


----------



## P Smith

You should remember previous sats final movement .... no TLE for DAYS and presto ! It's PARKED.

Looks to me DTV prohibit posting current data, perhaps of IP of the maneuver.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Five two second burns require the same fuel as one ten second burn. Apparently you don't grasp that simple concept.


I grasp that just fine. I choose to ignore individual burns and sum them up as starts and stops. Every start requires a more or less equal and opposite stop. The duration or number of burns is incidental.


----------



## Go Beavs

P Smith said:


> You should remember previous sats final movement .... no TLE for DAYS and presto ! It's PARKED.
> 
> Looks to me DTV prohibit posting current data, perhaps of IP of the maneuver.


Haha... I do remember that... The sky is falling, the sky is falling.... :lol:


----------



## Sixto

P Smith said:


> You should remember previous sats final movement .... no TLE for DAYS and presto ! It's PARKED.
> 
> Looks to me DTV prohibit posting current data, perhaps of IP of the maneuver.


Yep, in the past, a delay in TLE's right at this point, was good news.


----------



## HoTat2

Hey TLE #53 is released by Spacetrak. Somebody want to put it into orbitron or some other to see where D14 exactly is by now ... 

1 40333U 14078B 15025.60000000 -.00000090 00000-0 00000+0 0 532
2 40333 000.0190 192.7790 0014708 114.4760 294.6960 00.99899356 524

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## longrider

I recently got Orbitron and am still learning it. I can get the first set of data but I am not sure how to get the second set

Name 0 DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-25 14:24:00
Orbit # at Epoch 52
Inclination 0.019
RA of A. Node 192.779
Eccentricity 0.0014708
Argument of Perigee 114.476
Revs per day 0.99899356
Period 24h 01m 27s (1441.45 min)
Semi-major axis 42 269 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 829 x 35 954 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 294.696
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 53 / 1 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A


----------



## harsh

I'm on my way out the door but someone might want to take a peek at this:

http://www.satellite-calculations.com/Satellite/SatTracker/sattracker.php?40333?http://www.celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/geo.txt


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> I'm on my way out the door but someone might want to take a peek at this:
> 
> http://www.satellite-calculations.com/Satellite/SatTracker/sattracker.php?40333?http://www.celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/geo.txt


Think this TLE is too old with an epoch time of 14:24 UTC (9:24 AM EST).

As extrapolating from this places D14 as still drifting west passing 100.5°

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

That one (53) is the latest I can find ...

Epoch Sun Jan 25 09:24:00 EST


Code:


0 DIRECTV 14
1 40333U 14078B   15025.60000000 -.00000090  00000-0  00000+0 0   532
2 40333 000.0190 192.7790 0014708 114.4760 294.6960 00.99899356   524

Time elapsed since epoch: 35:22:46 (Calculations done at epoch unless noted)

Apogee 35953.35 Perigee 35829.01 Gap 124.34 Average 104.74 above Nominal
Inclination 0.0190
Satellite period,TC 24:01:27.04 (Nominal 23:56:04.09)

Satellite Longitude 98.7023 West (at Epoch)
Satellite Longitude 100.6853 West (at 20:46:46 EST Monday using this TLE)
Target Longitude 99.00 West +/-0.05
The satellite reached the target on Sunday @ 2:42p EST following the TLE shown.

Average Driftrate 1.3452 deg/day West

(Of course, the satellite will reach it's final location "no earlier than February 4th" ... so perhaps further tracking will be like watching maintenance trucks slowly crawling along the road leading to their yard, trying to arrive at quitting time and not a moment early.  )


----------



## bakers12

James Long said:


> (Of course, the satellite will reach it's final location "no earlier than February 4th" ... so perhaps further tracking will be like watching maintenance trucks slowly crawling along the road leading to their yard, trying to arrive at quitting time and not a moment early.  )


It's more like watching a construction crew putting up a building - a little at a time. :grin:


----------



## Ken984

longrider said:


> I recently got Orbitron and am still learning it. I can get the first set of data but I am not sure how to get the second set
> 
> Name 0 DIRECTV 14
> NORAD # 40333
> COSPAR designator 2014-078-B
> Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-25 14:24:00
> Orbit # at Epoch 52
> Inclination 0.019
> RA of A. Node 192.779
> Eccentricity 0.0014708
> Argument of Perigee 114.476
> Revs per day 0.99899356
> Period 24h 01m 27s (1441.45 min)
> Semi-major axis 42 269 km
> Perigee x Apogee 35 829 x 35 954 km
> BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
> Mean anomaly 294.696
> Propagation model SDP4
> Element number / age 53 / 1 day(s)
> StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
> Diameters N/A
> Satellite group N/A


Get the second set from the right side of the window. There are 2 tabs at the bottom one says Satellites the other says Data. Click the data tab and then right click to save the table to the clipboard. When I paste it I try to remember to cut off the data for the sun and moon that are included there.


----------



## longrider

Thank you Ken, here is the complete info:

Name 0 DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-25 14:24:00
Orbit # at Epoch 52
Inclination 0.019
RA of A. Node 192.779
Eccentricity 0.0014708
Argument of Perigee 114.476
Revs per day 0.99899356
Period 24h 01m 27s (1441.45 min)
Semi-major axis 42 269 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 829 x 35 954 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 294.696
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 53 / 1 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A


10 DIRECTV 14
Lon 101.4228° W
Lat 0.0064° N
Alt (km) 35 869.970
Azm 174.4°
Elv 43.9°
RA 15h 48m 44s
Decl -6° 10' 24"
Range (km) 37 566.693
RRt (km/s) -0.004
Vel (km/s) 3.072
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 289.6° (205)
TA 289.4°
Orbit # 54
Mag (illum) ? (36%)
Constellation Lib

I pulled the numbers at about 7:05 MT which is 14:05 UTC making it almost exactly 2 days old. Without any maneuvers (which I would think have happened) it is already past 101


----------



## fleckrj

Maybe my previous senior moment (http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/170004-directv-satellite-discussion-d-14/page-112#entry3326381) when I said the final spot was going to be 103 was not so far off :grin:


----------



## Diana C

I'm sorry, but I haven't been paying enough attentionn which side of D-11 is D-14 supposed to park itself?

Since the last few hundred miles of travel will be pretty close to final altitude they have to make sure they don't run into the satellite already parked there. If the satellite is to be parked on the same side as its IOT location, then there will a number of small thruster burns to slow down its drift and circularize its orbit, If it has to end up on the far side of D-11, then it will pass its target and approach from the opposite direction.

In either case, D-14's E/W movement will not suddenly stop, but will diminish slowly. It can easily take another few days before it actually arrives on station.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> I'm sorry, but I haven't been paying enough attentionn which side of D-11 is D-14 supposed to park itself?


DIRECTV 14 will be located on the west end of the procession of four satellites.


----------



## richall01

In the signal strength menu it is showing 103 (s) is this Directv 14


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> Think this TLE is too old with an epoch time of 14:24 UTC (9:24 AM EST).


I presented the link as a quick and dirty alternative to firing up Orbitron and loading the TLE.

The TLE is the latest they've made available. Its existence probably disappointed some.


----------



## harsh

richall01 said:


> In the signal strength menu it is showing 103 (s) is this Directv 14


Isn't that the designation for Spaceway 1?


----------



## texasbrit

No, 103s isn't a satellite. It is a grouping of the spotbeam transponders from the two satellites at 103 carrying spotbeams.


----------



## P Smith

Diana C said:


> ... It can easily take another few days before it actually arrives on station.


I would bet on a week.


----------



## HoTat2

texasbrit said:


> No, 103s isn't a satellite. It is a grouping of the spotbeam transponders from the two satellites at 103 carrying spotbeams.


Or possibly all three satellites if D10 and D12 are actually sharing spotbeam duties on the Ka B band alongside SW1's Ka A band ones.

As with the Ku band spotbeams from D4S and D9S at 101, no way to really tell on our end since their SB payloads are identical.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

D14 has regular 36 MHz wide Ka hi spot beams that are more spectrum efficient than the Spaceways' 62.5 MHz wide transponders that allow only four spot beam transponders in the eight transponder slots available. So D14 will either work in concert with SW2 to supply spot beams or replace its duties entirely.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Or possibly all three satellites if D10 and D12 are actually sharing spotbeam duties on the Ka B band alongside SW1's Ka A band ones.
> 
> As with the Ku band spotbeams from D4S and D9S at 101, no way to really tell on our end since their SB payloads are identical.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Yes, 103s shows all three satellites. If SW2 continues supplying spot beams along with D14, there will be 3 sats shown on 99s as well.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> DIRECTV 14 will be located on the west end of the procession of four satellites.


So it will go well past 99 and come back again. P Smith is probably right...it likely won't be parked before next Monday.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Yes, 103s shows all three satellites. If SW2 continues supplying spot beams along with D14, there will be 3 sats shown on 99s as well.


What I meant by "show" was that the 103(s) screen can't show the particular host satellite in a local market for the spotbeam transponders 15-24 as D10 and D12 both share them.

The locals could be coming from either bird in a given market.

Same with spotbeams from D4S and D9S at 101, and "possibly" the upcoming D14 and SW2 pairing on 99(s) for transponders 1-4.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> What I meant by "show" was that the 103(s) screen can't show the particular host satellite in a local market for the spotbeam transponders 15-24 as D10 and D12 both share them.
> 
> The locals could be coming from either bird in a given market.
> 
> Same with spotbeams from D4S and D9S at 101, and "possibly" the upcoming D14 and SW2 pairing on 99(s) for transponders 1-6.


If SW2 continues service it would have to reduce to four transponders, because the center frequencies can only match up between four, not six. It can share duty with D14 only on transponders 1/2 and 7/8. The frequencies for transponders 3/4 & 5/6 cross the 62.5 MHz Spaceway transponder boundaries.

I assume right now it is using transponder 5/6 frequencies on Spaceway's 2/3 transponders, with the center frequency adjusted down so it fits the 125 MHz top end.


----------



## Jon J

Diana C said:


> So it will go well past 99 and come back again. P Smith is probably right...it likely won't be parked before next Monday.


According to N2YO DTV14 is at Latitude 0, Longitude -101.52.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> If SW2 continues service it would have to reduce to four transponders, because the center frequencies can only match up between four, not six. It can share duty with D14 only on transponders 1/2 and 7/8. The frequencies for transponders 3/4 & 5/6 cross the 62.5 MHz Spaceway transponder boundaries.
> 
> I assume right now it is using transponder 5/6 frequencies on Spaceway's 2/3 transponders, with the center frequency adjusted down so it fits the 125 MHz top end.


Right, corrected to xpndrs 1-4 max. available for SW2 when D14 goes live.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## texasbrit

slice1900 said:


> Yes, 103s shows all three satellites. If SW2 continues supplying spot beams along with D14, there will be 3 sats shown on 99s as well.


Yes, it's three not two as I posted....


----------



## HoTat2

Jon J said:


> According to N2YO DTV14 is at Latitude 0, Longitude -101.52.


But I think N2YO is just extrapolating from the last publicly released TLE like everyone else as well.

So can't read much into them either.

Again, like others here have noted, while I'm pretty sure there is a sort of "hook" maneuver being executed that initially took D14 past its operational slot of 99.235W +/- .025° drifting west, only to swing back in an easterly drift back toward its target. It definitely hasn't gone past 101W like that. We simply need more recent TLEs to be certain though.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana C

Yes, it is unlikely to have drifted further than 100o before it stopped and then started to turn back. Its east/west movement, once it does turn back eastward, will be very slow. It may even seem to be motionless for a while (depending on the timing of the TLE publication relative to the thruster burns).


----------



## cypherx

These guys and their calculated hook maneuvers. I'd like to see them play a round of golf.


----------



## P Smith

cypherx said:


> These guys and their calculated hook maneuvers. I'd like to see them play a round of golf.


It's only all points/tracks on PC screens


----------



## HoTat2

Ok, TLE #54 is out (finally).

Orbitron folks?

1 40333U 14078B 15027.51433834 -.00000140 00000-0 00000+0 0 546
2 40333 000.0074 083.5537 0000788 150.7658 338.0375 01.00258152 544

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

No one? It could be parked already!


----------



## Diana C

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-27 12:20:38
Orbit # at Epoch 54
Inclination 0.007
RA of A. Node 83.554
Eccentricity 0.0000788
Argument of Perigee 150.766
Revs per day 1.00258152
Period 23h 56m 17s (1436.28 min)
Semi-major axis 42 169 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 787 x 35 794 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 338.038
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 54 / 1 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary


1DIRECTV 14
Lon 99.2423° W
Lat 0.0162° N
Alt (km) 35 786.840
Azm 292.9°
Elv -24.2°
RA 13h 51m 28s
Decl -6° 32' 48"
Range (km) 44 381.892
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 337.9° (239)
TA 337.9°
Orbit # 54
Mag (illum) Not visible
Constellation Vir


Calculated at Epoch time


----------



## Diana C

Looks like it is very close to being parked. Since the TLE is about 30 hours old now, it may already be parked. It has only a very slight westward drift in this TLE (less than 0.05 degrees per day). For comparison, Spaceway 1 drifts about 0.0035 degrees per day.


----------



## HoTat2

Wow, ... at 99.2423W?

Target: 99.235W +/- .025°

For all intents and purposes, should be considered parked by now I would think....

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

Once it is parked, I assume Directv has to make another FCC filing before it is allowed to begin broadcasting?


----------



## Diana C

HoTat2 said:


> Wow, ... at 99.2423W?
> 
> Target: 99.235W +/- .025°
> 
> For all intents and purposes, should be considered parked by now I would think....
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Except, at least as of this observation, the spacecraft still has more drift than it should. They may well have been in the process of circularizing the orbit at the epoch time. We'll have a better idea when we see TLE #55.


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> Once it is parked, I assume Directv has to make another FCC filing before it is allowed to begin broadcasting?


Yes, they will have to file an application to operate the satellite. They will also need to file earth station applications before they start commercial service over RDBS (since, IIRC, all the existing RDBS licenses were issued under a STA), but that's likely down the road a bit.


----------



## James Long

Diana C said:


> Except, at least as of this observation, the spacecraft still has more drift than it should. They may well have been in the process of circularizing the orbit at the epoch time. We'll have a better idea when we see TLE #55.


Using the reported TLE --
Time elapsed since epoch: 35:35:14 (Calculations done at epoch unless noted)

Satellite Longitude 99.2665 West (at Epoch)
Satellite Longitude 99.3376 West (at 17:55:53 EST Wednesday using this TLE)
Target Longitude 99.235 West +/-0.025
The satellite was reported moving away from the target.

We are still a day and a half behind ... so 55 (or newer) is certainly something to look forward to.


----------



## richall01

Jon J said:


> According to N2YO DTV14 is at Latitude 0, Longitude -101.52.


Now showing DTV14 is at Longitude 99.3 , speed 0. Does mean that it is parked?


----------



## harsh

richall01 said:


> Now showing DTV14 is at Longitude 99.3 , speed 0. Does mean that it is parked?


99.3W is west of the allowed window.

Parked is when the apogee and perigee are about 35,786km, the latitude is 0 +/- .025 and the longitude is between 99.26W and 99.21W.

I expect that once parked, we'll get regular TLEs meeting these criteria.


----------



## James Long

"Now showing" isn't likely to be accurate when the data driving the estimate is nearly 37 hours old.
The average driftrate is 0.0493 deg/day ... which may be rounded. It is close to zero but not quite.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Please keep it clean and civil. Discuss the topic and not each other.

Mike


----------



## Diana C

James Long said:


> "Now showing" isn't likely to be accurate when the data driving the estimate is nearly 37 hours old.The average driftrate is 0.0493 deg/day ... which may be rounded. It is close to zero but not quite.


Yes, as I noted above, that is about 10x the drift rate of a parked satellite. Until drift gets down to 0.00XX range the satellite isn't parked.


----------



## HoTat2

Probably an obvious answer here, but I'll ask just the same. 

Since there are technically two kinds of "drift" for a geosynchronous satellite. The simultaneous E-W, N-S figure-8 movement of the satellite even when considered parked (or it's "analemma."). And the value of the E-W longitude drift of the center point of the figure-8.

I assume programs like Orbitron ignore the prior oscillatory movement and list the second value as the satellite's "drift rate?"

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana C

Orbitron doesn't report a "drift rate" it just reports the position as noted in the TLE. You have the option to display the spacecraft's position in real time (i.e. extrapolated from epoch to current time) or as a simulation (where you set the time for position calculation). I set the simulation time to the epoch value to get the true position at that time, for the set of numbers I posted yesterday.

Some programs will calculate the drift rate as an average over time, but AFAIK, it would include the analemma drift. The average drift for a parked satellite is on the order of a few thousandths of a degree per day. As of TLE 54, DirecTV-14 was drifting about 5 hundredths of a degree per day, or about an order of magnitude faster than a "parked" satellite.

BTW: the Celestrak GEO file for today still only has the TLE for orbit 54.


----------



## SledgeHammer

How does the reverse band compare to the normal Ka band in terms of bandwidth? Haven't been able to find anything about it. Are they planning to move everything to reverse band like they did with MPEG2 -> MPEG4 / Ku -> Ka transition?

Do we know anything about what format the 4K channels will be in? 30fps @ 4:2:0 / DD 5.1?


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> How does the reverse band compare to the normal Ka band in terms of bandwidth? Haven't been able to find anything about it. Are they planning to move everything to reverse band like they did with MPEG2 -> MPEG4 / Ku -> Ka transition?
> 
> Do we know anything about what format the 4K channels will be in? 30fps @ 4:2:0 / DD 5.1?


RDBS uses the same 36 MHz tpns Ka does, so if the same modulation was used the bandwidth would be identical. I wouldn't bet on the same modulation be used however, as DVB-S2X was tailor made for 4K use, allowing about 20-25% more bit rate and helping multiplexing by allowing transponder bonding. Not that this guarantees Directv will use it right away or at all, especially not if they want to roll out 4K channels before all the pieces are in place for DVB-S2X.

They've pretty much said RDBS will be used for 4K, and that makes a lot of sense - as far as we know no existing LNBs can receive RDBS so it pretty much has to be used for something new. Though I wouldn't be surprised if the first few 4K channels were on Ka and later switched to RDBS, similar to how HD rolled out on MPEG2 first. Since no network has or has even announced a 4K channel, we don't know what format they'll be in, but safe to guess there will be a variety with movie channels at 24fps, and sports at (eventually) 60 fps. As for color, Dolby, etc. your guess is as good as (maybe better than) mine.


----------



## HoTat2

SledgeHammer said:


> How does the reverse band compare to the normal Ka band in terms of bandwidth? Haven't been able to find anything about it. Are they planning to move everything to reverse band like they did with MPEG2 -> MPEG4 / Ku -> Ka transition?
> 
> Do we know anything about what format the 4K channels will be in? 30fps @ 4:2:0 / DD 5.1?


Briefly, the entire RDBS bandwidth for the US service is 400 Mhz.

Downlink is between 17.3-17.7 GHz, Uplink is between 24.750-25.150 GHz.

DIRECTV's RDBS payloads comprise 18 36 MHz wide transponders, 9 RHCP and 9 LHCP from 99W (D14) and 103W (D15) on CONUS beams and spotbeams for Hawaii and PR.

Uplink stations for RDBS programming for DIRECTV will come from Moxee, WA. (NWUF) and New Hampton, NH. (NEUF)

Everything else you ask outside that 4K UHD has been officially confirmed to use the "R-band" as its now referred to as, is really still speculative.

Including the equipment for subscribers to even receive it.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Everything else you ask outside that 4K UHD has been officially confirmed to use the "R-band" as its now referred to as, is really still speculative.


The FCC filings for D14/D15 did say RDBS would be used for "new services" including 4K, so I don't think that part is speculation.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> The FCC filings for D14/D15 did say RDBS would be used for "new services" including 4K, so I don't think that part is speculation.


But that's what I was trying to say that beyond 4K all else like what transmission format it will use or what these "new services" are actually is "speculation" as to what they will be.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## bakers12

TLE 55 is available now. DirecTV 14 is just about where they want it, in a very circular orbit, drifting slightly to the West. It should be in position in around the 4th at this rate.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-29 14:28:28
Orbit # at Epoch 56
Inclination 0.006
RA of A. Node 94.057
Eccentricity 0.0000140
Argument of Perigee 302.149
Revs per day 1.00270963
Period 23h 56m 06s (1436.10 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 786 x 35 787 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 210.154
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 55 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A

DIRECTV 14
Lon 99.2496° W
Lat 0.0229° N
Alt (km) 35 786.390
Azm 196.6°
Elv 40.4°
RA 08h 43m 37s
Decl -6° 23' 47"
Range (km) 37 746.560
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 96.1° (68)
TA 96.1°
Orbit # 57
Mag (illum) ? (98%)
Constellation Hya


----------



## HoTat2

bakers12 said:


> TLE 55 is available now. DirecTV 14 is just about where they want it, in a very circular orbit, drifting slightly to the West. It should be in position in around the 4th at this rate. ...


Around the 4th?

Unless I'm still misunderstanding something, it should be considered parked in position now with those numbers ... 

Especially if these are numbers at epoch (You didn't specify).

Target- 99.235W +/- .025°
Difference- 99.2496 - 99.235W = .0146°
Apogee × perigee = 35,787 x 35,786 km
Geo altitude target- 35,786 km

Geo velocity target- 3.07 km/s
Satellite velocity- 3.075 km/s

Geo period target- 1436 min.
Satellite- 1436.10 min.

Can you ask for closer GEO numbers than this?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## The Scotsman

HoTat2 said:


> Briefly, the entire RDBS bandwidth for the US service is 400 Mhz.
> 
> Downlink is between 17.3-17.7 GHz, Uplink is between 24.750-25.150 GHz.
> 
> DIRECTV's RDBS payloads comprise 18 36 MHz wide transponders, 9 RHCP and 9 LHCP from 99W (D14) and 103W (D15) on CONUS beams and spotbeams for Hawaii and PR.
> 
> Uplink stations for RDBS programming for DIRECTV will come from Moxee, WA. (NWUF) and New Hampton, NH. (NEUF)
> 
> Everything else you ask outside that 4K UHD has been officially confirmed to use the "R-band" as its now referred to as, is really still speculative.
> 
> Including the equipment for subscribers to even receive it.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


If the 4K broadcasts will use RDBS and assuming existing LNBs can't receive RDBS, does that mean the DirecTV installer will need to return and swap my LNB assembly again? I got a Genie in December with new dish and 5 LNB kit for 99, 101, 103, 110 and 119. I wonder if there's a chance that the new hardware is RDBS capable.


----------



## P Smith

Take your time reading the thread - the speculation been very extensive here.


----------



## HoTat2

The Scotsman said:


> If the 4K broadcasts will use RDBS and assuming existing LNBs can't receive RDBS, does that mean the DirecTV installer will need to return and swap my LNB assembly again? I got a Genie in December with new dish and 5 LNB kit for 99, 101, 103, 110 and 119. I wonder if there's a chance that the new hardware is RDBS capable.


From all available information, no, none of currently released dish reception gear is RDBS capable.

DIRECTV has made mention in some of their FCC filings last year that they have indeed developed it. But have yet to reveal any of it to the public.

So from this admittedly highly limited info., it appears an upgrade to RDBS will require a return (in your case) for the installation of new equipment.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## bakers12

HoTat2 said:


> Around the 4th?
> 
> Unless I'm still misunderstanding something, it should be considered parked in position now with those numbers ...
> 
> Especially if these are numbers at epoch (You didn't specify).


D14 is drifting to the West slowly according to Orbitron. The numbers were produced at the time of my post.

My mistake was in thinking the destination is 99.275° not the correct destination, which is 99.235°. So according to TLE 55, D14 is actually heading in the wrong direction.

That's what happens when I post at 1 in the morning.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> I wouldn't bet on the same modulation be used however, as DVB-S2X was tailor made for 4K use, allowing about 20-25% more bit rate and helping multiplexing by allowing transponder bonding. Not that this guarantees Directv will use it right away or at all, especially not if they want to roll out 4K channels before all the pieces are in place for DVB-S2X.


Does DVB-S2X realize the same bandwidth efficiencies at RDBS frequencies? Bonding will help if they can't fit even multiples but I'm betting that they're pretty close to 2 UHD channels per transponder as it is.


----------



## Diana C

D14's position at epoch time:

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-01-29 14:28:28
Orbit # at Epoch 56
Inclination 0.006
RA of A. Node 94.057
Eccentricity 0.0000140
Argument of Perigee 302.149
Revs per day 1.00270963
Period 23h 56m 06s (1436.10 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 786 x 35 787 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 210.154
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 55 / 1 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary


DIRECTV 14
Lon 99.2501° W
Lat 0.0027° N
Alt (km) 35 786.830
Azm 216.4°
Elv 40.1°
RA 16h 12m 58s
Decl -5° 48' 39"
Range (km) 37 772.029
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 210.2° (149)
TA 210.2°
Orbit # 56
Mag (illum) ? (30%)
Constellation Oph

Still not quite parked, but getting closer.


----------



## shy007

I very seldom comment but I really enjoying following these updates. Thanks to everyone that keeps us updated.


----------



## bakers12

Diana C said:


> Element number / age 55 / 1 day(s)


Actually, it's still TLE 55.


----------



## Diana C

bakers12 said:


> Actually, it's still TLE 55.


 Yeah, my mistake...I was looking at orbit number not TLE number. NORAD apparently didn't issue a TLE for orbit 55 so they don't match anymore.

The north/south drift still looks a bit too large to be considered parked, but it is very close. Orbit is as close to circular as it gets, so it is in GEO - all that is left is a few tweaks to position it in its box.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Does DVB-S2X realize the same bandwidth efficiencies at RDBS frequencies? Bonding will help if they can't fit even multiples but I'm betting that they're pretty close to 2 UHD channels per transponder as it is.


Since RDBS is only 1000 MHz lower than Ka lo, and has the same 36 MHz wide tpns, it can almost be considered another Ka band, but DVB-S2X's bandwidth efficiencies have nothing to do with the frequency. You would get the same efficiency gains with DVB-S2X on Ku or Ka tpns, though since no current receivers can do DVB-S2X its use will be rather limited unless you're doing something new like 4K.

The main efficiency gain is from the smaller roll off, with the minimum of 5% providing by itself a 15% efficiency gain over the minimum of 20% that DVB-S2 allows and Directv uses. Dish already uses a non-standard roll off of about 11% on their "turbo" transponders as a solution to help make their transponders go a bit further.

The bandwidth required by 4K channels will depend to a large extent on the quality level Directv wants to deliver, but having only two channels per transponder doesn't give the statmux much room to work in. Using two or even three transponders and having four or six channels to work with provides a lot more flexibility. Of course, with 36 transponders they can use for 4K and no 4K channels even announced, it will be years before they need more than one channel per transponder so there's no rush...


----------



## James Long

Epoch Fri Jan 30 09:00:26 EST


Code:


0 DIRECTV 14
1 40333U 14078B   15030.58363831 -.00000143  00000-0  00000+0 0   561
2 40333 000.0099 081.5567 0000207 326.6810 192.0802 01.00271705   577

Time elapsed since epoch: 09:20:01 (Calculations done at epoch unless noted)

Apogee 35787.35 Perigee 35785.60 Gap 1.75 Average 0.04 above Nominal
Inclination 0.0099
Satellite period,TC 23:56:05.88 (Nominal 23:56:04.09)

Satellite Longitude 99.2794 West (at Epoch)
Satellite Longitude 99.2796 West (at 18:20:28 EST Friday using this TLE)
Target Longitude 99.235 West +/-0.025
The satellite was reported moving away from the target.

Average Driftrate 0.0005 deg/day West


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Since RDBS is only 1000 MHz lower than Ka lo, and has the same 36 MHz wide tpns, it can almost be considered another Ka band, but DVB-S2X's bandwidth efficiencies have nothing to do with the frequency.


So none of the gains come from using higher order PSK that DIRECTV seems to be avoiding with Ka?


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> So none of the gains come from using higher order PSK that DIRECTV seems to be avoiding with Ka?


There are higher order modulations of up to 32APSK available, along with a wider array of FEC ratios to get as close to the Shannon Limit as possible. Of course there is no such thing as a free lunch, the higher order modulations require more error correction or you reduce your signal margin.

The 20-25% gains in question for DVB-S2X are for the _same_ signal margin, so you get 15% from the smaller roll off, and 5 or 10% from getting closer to the Shannon limit due to a wider array of more carefully chosen FEC ratios. If you're willing to give up signal margin you can use a higher order modulation without fully compensating for it via FEC, as is always true.

In fact, DVB-S2X supports some modulation/FEC schemes that are designed to work with a negative SNR.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> There are higher order modulations of up to 32APSK available, along with a wider array of FEC ratios to get as close to the Shannon Limit as possible. Of course there is no such thing as a free lunch, the higher order modulations require more error correction or you reduce your signal margin.
> 
> The 20-25% gains in question for DVB-S2X are for the _same_ signal margin, so you get 15% from the smaller roll off, and 5 or 10% from getting closer to the Shannon limit due to a wider array of more carefully chosen FEC ratios. If you're willing to give up signal margin you can use a higher order modulation without fully compensating for it via FEC, as is always true.
> 
> In fact, DVB-S2X supports some modulation/FEC schemes that are designed to work with a negative SNR.


Should I be looking for an answer to my question in all of this noodling?


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Should I be looking for an answer to my question in all of this noodling?


Directv isn't "avoiding" higher order PSK, it is a zero sum game. You must pay back what you gain with more FEC, or a reduced signal margin. A provider chooses the SNR margin they're willing to tolerate, and bases their choice of modulation/FEC rate on that target SNR margin. You can't just switch to 8PSK and get a higher data rate for free, Shannon says it doesn't work that way.

For example, Dish's regular tpns are 20 Ms/s QPSK 7/8 = 35 Mbps, their "turbo" tpns are 21.5 Ms/s 8PSK 2/3 = 42.3 Mbps, a 21% gain. They get 7.5% from the smaller roll off (21.5 Ms/s vs 20 Ms/s) and 11.4% going from QPSK 7/8 to 8PSK 2/3. They pay for that 11.4% by sacrificing 1 db of SNR margin.

Your question can be asked the other way around: why is Dish forced to use a higher order modulation that makes their turbo tpns more susceptible to weather? It is a choice for both Dish and Directv. Neither is 'right' or 'wrong', they are each operating under different constraints.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Should I be looking for an answer to my question in all of this noodling?


And from all indications so far, DIRECTV has apparently chosen NOT to go with a higher level mod. for R band transmissions since the only modulation format selection listed in the Schedule S Tech. reports filed for RB-1 and 2 (S2711 and S2712) is QPSK at an FEC rate of .64


----------



## cypherx

Maybe it's for the better. The rain fade stinks so if you go a higher order modulation, many of those extra bits is wasted on FEC and you still end up with marginal gains but even less tolerable rain fade.

Cable has the advantage since it's all on a wire direct connected with 256QAM netting 38.8 Mbps per 6 MHz. Guess that's impossible pushing that through the air.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> For example, Dish's regular tpns are 20 Ms/s QPSK 7/8 = 35 Mbps, their "turbo" tpns are 21.5 Ms/s 8PSK 2/3 ...


DISH has "QPSK Turbo" transponders (22.5 Ms/s QPSK 5/6). Calling their 8PSK transponders "turbo" is misleading and incorrect. DISH's Turbo transponders are QPSK, not 8PSK. (And yes, it makes a difference as some receivers can do turbo and not 8PSK. Turbo is only used on one orbital location.)

Otherwise, most of DISH's 8PSK transponders are 21.5 Ms/s 8PSK 2/3 (all 8PSK ConUS and 210 of 350 8PSK spots). When one includes spots, most of DISH's QPSK transponders are 20 Ms/s QPSK 5/6 (101 spots, 1 ConUS), but 20 Ms/s QPSK 7/8 is used for ConUS (34 ConUS and 37 spots).

And now, with the correction out of the way, back to D-14 ...



slice1900 said:


> it is a zero sum game


I would not say "zero". It is not a 100% gain but there is still a benefit that is greater than zero for using 8PSK. Otherwise no one would be using that modulation.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> I would not say "zero". It is not a 100% gain but there is still a benefit that is greater than zero for using 8PSK. Otherwise no one would be using that modulation.


Thanks for the correction on Dish's tpns, I'm not really familiar with their setup so I didn't realize they have tpns that do 22.5 Ms/s. Not sure why the distinction calling only one "turbo" since both 21.5 Ms/s and 22.5 Ms/s are non-standard for DVB-S2, but Directv has their own non-standard stuff with their "DSS" on their MPEG2 Ku tpns that is some sort of non-standard extension to DVB-S.

It is still a zero sum game as any given signal margin / spectral efficiency can only be provided by certain combinations of modulation & FEC. You can't have "negative FEC", so at some point your only choice is to use a higher order modulation. Higher order modulation only buys you something if lower modulations can't deliver what you're looking for. If for example using a standard 20 Ms/s you wanted 30 Mbps, you could do it via QPSK 3/4 or 8PSK 1/2. Both have the same spectral efficiency and would therefore provide the same bit rate, and both will cost 4.03 db signal margin. [Note: 8PSK 1/2 isn't part of the DVB-S2 standard since it is identical to QPSK 3/4 - the modulation/FEC combinations are deliberately made unique to allow a wider variety of signal margins / spectral efficiencies to choose from]


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> Not sure why the distinction calling only one "turbo" since both 21.5 Ms/s and 22.5 Ms/s are non-standard for DVB-S2,


They may be referring to using Turbo coding instead of Viterbi coding for FEC.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Directv isn't "avoiding" higher order PSK, it is a zero sum game.


Yes or no: Will DVB-S2X bring its substantial bandwidth gains when applied to RDBS?


----------



## VARTV

SledgeHammer said:


> How does the reverse band compare to the normal Ka band in terms of bandwidth? Haven't been able to find anything about it. Are they planning to move everything to reverse band like they did with MPEG2 -> MPEG4 / Ku -> Ka transition?
> 
> Do we know anything about what format the 4K channels will be in? 30fps @ 4:2:0 / DD 5.1?


I'd like to see ESPN in 1080p carried...


----------



## Laxguy

VARTV said:


> I'd like to see ESPN in 1080p carried...


I sure would, too.

Got me thinking: Why isn't the Super Bowl in 1080p? (I suppose it still could be, but wouldn't it have been bruited by now?)
Surely for a few hours they could figure out how to spring the bandwidth.


----------



## HoTat2

TLE #57 is out.

Orbitron folks have at it ...

1 40333U 14078B 15032.44734750 -.00000142 00000-0 00000+0 0 570
2 40333 000.0120 086.4084 0000214 327.2661 139.4173 01.00271930 597

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Yes or no: Will DVB-S2X bring its substantial bandwidth gains when applied to RDBS?


Yes. The gains (though not sure I'd call 20% "substantial"...) have nothing to do with frequency.


----------



## slice1900

Laxguy said:


> I sure would, too.
> 
> Got me thinking: Why isn't the Super Bowl in 1080p? (I suppose it still could be, but wouldn't it have been bruited by now?)
> Surely for a few hours they could figure out how to spring the bandwidth.


The Super Bowl is broadcast OTA, plus few if any cable/satellite receivers can output 1080p60. Directv receivers can only output 1080p24, which is worse than 1080i (and I'd certainly argue much worse than 720p60 for fast action sports)


----------



## yosoyellobo

HoTat2 said:


> TLE #57 is out.
> Orbitron folks have at it ...
> 1 40333U 14078B 15032.44734750 -.00000142 00000-0 00000+0 0 570
> 2 40333 000.0120 086.4084 0000214 327.2661 139.4173 01.00271930 597
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Are we there yet?


----------



## Laxguy

slice1900 said:


> The Super Bowl is broadcast OTA, plus few if any cable/satellite receivers can output 1080p60. Directv receivers can only output 1080p24, which is worse than 1080i (and I'd certainly argue much worse than 720p60 for fast action sports)


Yes, thanks, I see now.

I've never had a problem with sports @ 1080i, not a shred. But then I chose my monitors fairly carefully. What I have seen is crappy broadcasts of every format, and those differences can be much larger than any inherent plusses or minuses.


----------



## longrider

Here it is:

Name 0 DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-02-01 10:44:10
Orbit # at Epoch 59
Inclination 0.012
RA of A. Node 86.408
Eccentricity 0.0000214
Argument of Perigee 327.266
Revs per day 1.00271930
Period 23h 56m 05s (1436.8 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 786 x 35 787 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 139.417
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 57 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A

10 DIRECTV 14
Lon 99.2474° W
Lat 0.0168° S
Alt (km) 35 786.590
Azm 171.1°
Elv 43.7°
RA 19h 12m 02s
Decl -6° 12' 36"
Range (km) 37 502.649
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction  Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 233.5° (165)
TA 233.5°
Orbit # 59
Mag (illum) ? (8%)
Constellation Aql


Looks like it is in place to me.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Yes. The gains (though not sure I'd call 20% "substantial"...) have nothing to do with frequency.


In HD land, 20% is an additional channel. In bonded UHD land, it may also be an additional channel.

My understanding was that much of the gains came from the modulation and the modulation is indeed frequency dependent. You're explanations have not addressed why the modulation isn't where the gains are made but rather why they cannot reasonably be used.


----------



## longrider

My previous post was at the time of posting, 17:00 UTC Here it is at epoch, I will wait for the experts to comment but it looks parked to me:

Name 0 DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-02-01 10:44:10
Orbit # at Epoch 59
Inclination 0.012
RA of A. Node 86.408
Eccentricity 0.0000214
Argument of Perigee 327.266
Revs per day 1.00271930
Period 23h 56m 05s (1436.8 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 786 x 35 787 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 139.417
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 57 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A

10 DIRECTV 14
Lon 99.2438° W
Lat 0.0319° N
Alt (km) 35 786.730
Azm 171.0°
Elv 43.7°
RA 12h 55m 30s
Decl -6° 09' 20"
Range (km) 37 498.955
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 139.4° (99)
TA 139.4°
Orbit # 59
Mag (illum) ? (75%)
Constellation Vir


----------



## Oli74

Once parked it will be on service in how many days?? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

It appeared from TLE 56 that DIRECTV 14 was in the box. TLE 57 shows it is still there and the latitude variance from 0 has diminished slightly.


----------



## longrider

Oli74 said:


> Once parked it will be on service in how many days??
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Only DirecTV knows but their last permit did say not before Feb 4th


----------



## James Long

Epoch Sun Feb 1 05:44:10 EST


Code:


0 DIRECTV 14
1 40333U 14078B   15032.44734750 -.00000142  00000-0  00000+0 0   570
2 40333 000.0120 086.4084 0000214 327.2661 139.4173 01.00271930   597

Time elapsed since epoch: 07:15:42 (Calculations done at epoch unless noted)

Apogee 35787.32 Perigee 35785.51 Gap 1.80 Average 0.03 below Nominal
Inclination 0.0120
Satellite period,TC 23:56:05.69 (Nominal 23:56:04.09)

Satellite Longitude 99.2748 West (at Epoch)
Satellite Longitude 99.2747 West (at 12:59:52 EST Sunday using this TLE)
Target Longitude 99.235 West +/-0.025
The satellite will reach the target on Saturday @ 9:44p EST following the TLE shown.

Average Driftrate 0.0003 deg/day East


----------



## James Long

longrider said:


> Only DirecTV knows but their last permit did say not before Feb 4th


Correct ... no earlier than February 4th. Regardless of where the satellite is or how slow it is moving it is not parked until the controllers say it is parked.

Channels will come later. Sorry, no new HD or UHD from D-14 this week. 
(And we have a long running thread for channel anticipation.)


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> In HD land, 20% is an additional channel. In bonded UHD land, it may also be an additional channel.
> 
> My understanding was that much of the gains came from the modulation and the modulation is indeed frequency dependent. You're explanations have not addressed why the modulation isn't where the gains are made but rather why they cannot reasonably be used.


The bulk of the gain is due to the ability to use a smaller roll off. DVB-S2's minimum roll off is 20%, which is what Directv uses. DVB-S2X's minimum is 5%, allowing a gain of nearly 15%. James said Dish is using 22.5 Ms/s on some tpns, which is a roll off of less than 7%, so they would see much less benefit from adopting DVB-S2X.

I've already explained several times, if you use higher order modulations to increase data rate you give up signal margin. DVB-S2X standardizes 16APSK and 32APSK for DBS applications, so all satellite receivers with a DVB-S2X chipset will be able to decode 32APSK. So if Directv took a QPSK 3/4 tpn and ran it at 32APSK 3/4 they'd get 2.5x higher bit rate! That's great, except you give up 8.7 db additional signal margin to get it, requiring 11.7 db total margin - that means anything below 92 or so as reported by a Directv receiver would be "no signal".


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> ...
> 
> I've already explained several times, if you use higher order modulations to increase data rate you give up signal margin. DVB-S2X standardizes 16APSK and 32APSK for DBS applications, so all satellite receivers with a DVB-S2X chipset will be able to decode 32APSK. So if Directv took a QPSK 3/4 tpn and ran it at 32APSK 3/4 they'd get 2.5x higher bit rate! That's great, except you give up 8.7 db additional signal margin to get it, requiring 11.7 db total margin - that means anything below 92 or so as reported by a Directv receiver would be "no signal".


Though I don't think either DIRECTV or DISH will ever have any real interest in going to higher level modulation formats like 16APSK or 32APSK that make any use of the amplitude domain, and will always prefer constant amplitude formats such as QPSK or 8-PSK so as to run the transponders to saturation levels for maximum efficiency.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

HoTat2 said:


> Though I don't think either DIRECTV or DISH will ever have any real interest in going to higher level modulation formats like 16APSK or 32APSK that make any use of the amplitude domain, and will always prefer constant amplitude formats such as QPSK or 8-PSK so as to run the transponders to saturation levels for maximum efficiency.


The question is how many satellite receivers can tune a greater than 8PSK transponder. Once you have that answer, throw the rest away and buy new receivers for everyone else. Billions of dollars later, what have you gained?

Passing through the raw channel data received on a QPSK or 8PSK transponder to a client is a good idea that both satellite carriers have introduced. Clients are cheap.

Make decisions that do not obsolete everything you have done in the past and perhaps you too can become a multi-billion dollar company.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

yosoyellobo said:


> Are we there yet?


"Soon"


----------



## James Long

Three days at the soonest. Based on the last TLE it is 0.039 from the center of the box and it needs to be 0.025 from the center of the box (five miles to the edge?).


----------



## longrider

James, where are your numbers coming from? Using Orbitron I get a longitude of 99.2438 at epoch, 99.2474 at 17:00 UTC and 99.2454 right now, all within the 0.025 range of 99.235 Running it through a couple days of simulation I can see the figure 8, ranging from 99.235 to 99.2478 and latitude of .0347 N to .0332 S.


----------



## James Long

I have a calculator program I wrote a few years ago based on a long forgotten website. There may be some rounding issues. Still pretty close.


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> The bulk of the gain is due to the ability to use a smaller roll off. DVB-S2's minimum roll off is 20%, which is what Directv uses. DVB-S2X's minimum is 5%, allowing a gain of nearly 15%. James said Dish is using 22.5 Ms/s on some tpns, which is a roll off of less than 7%, so they would see much less benefit from adopting DVB-S2X.
> 
> I've already explained several times, if you use higher order modulations to increase data rate you give up signal margin. DVB-S2X standardizes 16APSK and 32APSK for DBS applications, so all satellite receivers with a DVB-S2X chipset will be able to decode 32APSK. So if Directv took a QPSK 3/4 tpn and ran it at 32APSK 3/4 they'd get 2.5x higher bit rate! That's great, except you give up 8.7 db additional signal margin to get it, requiring 11.7 db total margin - that means anything below 92 or so as reported by a Directv receiver would be "no signal".


slice, I'm puzzled of an omission in your well educated posts. Usually you demonstrate thorough knowledge.
Anyway, regardless -S2X extension , -S2 standard already has the two new types of modulation APSK16 and 32, but you're not mentioning about typical use of the modulations: it comes with ACM/VCM modes, often with mandatory feedback and serving data streams. I did and continue see such transponders in US and in Europe.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> slice, I'm puzzled of an omission in your well educated posts. Usually you demonstrate thorough knowledge.
> Anyway, regardless -S2X extension , -S2 standard already has the two new types of modulation APSK16 and 32, but you're not mentioning about typical use of the modulations: it comes with ACM/VCM modes, often with mandatory feedback and serving data streams. I did and continue see such transponders in US and in Europe.


You are correct, but since 16/32APSK in DVB-S2 were intended for interactive services they are optional for broadcast services, so SoCs designed for DBS are unlikely to support them. In contrast these modulations are required in DVB-S2X for broadcast services, thus all DVB-S2X compliant SoCs will support 16/32APSK.



James Long said:


> The question is how many satellite receivers can tune a greater than 8PSK transponder. Once you have that answer, throw the rest away and buy new receivers for everyone else. Billions of dollars later, what have you gained?
> 
> Passing through the raw channel data received on a QPSK or 8PSK transponder to a client is a good idea that both satellite carriers have introduced. Clients are cheap.
> 
> Make decisions that do not obsolete everything you have done in the past and perhaps you too can become a multi-billion dollar company.


I do not suggest any possible use of greater than 8PSK modulation or DVB-S2X for current (i.e. HD) content. If DVB-S2X is used at all it will be for content that already requires new receivers, i.e. 4K broadcasts. If Directv introduces 4K receivers without DVB-S2X SoCs, either they have no plans to use DVB-S2X or the receivers they introduce without it will be a stopgap solution like the H10/HR10.

Even if they use DVB-S2X for 4K, it does not follow they will use more than 8PSK. The smaller roll off and transponder bonding features are more useful than higher order modulations.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> You are correct, but since 16/32APSK in DVB-S2 were intended for interactive services they are optional for broadcast services, so SoCs designed for DBS are unlikely to support them. In contrast these modulations are required in DVB-S2X for broadcast services, thus all DVB-S2X compliant SoCs will support 16/32APSK.
> 
> I do not suggest any possible use of greater than 8PSK modulation or DVB-S2X for current (i.e. HD) content. If DVB-S2X is used at all it will be for content that already requires new receivers, i.e. 4K broadcasts. If Directv introduces 4K receivers without DVB-S2X SoCs, either they have no plans to use DVB-S2X or the receivers they introduce without it will be a stopgap solution like the H10/HR10.
> 
> Even if they use DVB-S2X for 4K, it does not follow they will use more than 8PSK. The smaller roll off and transponder bonding features are more useful than higher order modulations.


This is what I was referring to;

When or if any new services and receivers such as 4K are started by DIRECTV or DISH, I don't see them choosing any of the higher level modulation formats of 16/32APSK for it. But will maintain the current practice of using constant envelope formats like 8-PSK in a saturated xpndr fashion.

Therefore, the bandwidth savings needed beyond what perhaps 8-PSK already offers will have to come from other means.

HEVC compression?

Sharper passband roll-off and channel bonding features DVB-S2X?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> You are correct, but since 16/32APSK in DVB-S2 were intended for interactive services they are optional for broadcast services, so SoCs designed for DBS are unlikely to support them. In contrast these modulations are required in DVB-S2X for broadcast services, thus all DVB-S2X compliant SoCs will support 16/32APSK.
> 
> I do not suggest any possible use of greater than 8PSK modulation or DVB-S2X for current (i.e. HD) content. If DVB-S2X is used at all it will be for content that already requires new receivers, i.e. 4K broadcasts. If Directv introduces 4K receivers without DVB-S2X SoCs, either they have no plans to use DVB-S2X or the receivers they introduce without it will be a stopgap solution like the H10/HR10.
> 
> Even if they use DVB-S2X for 4K, it does not follow they will use more than 8PSK. The smaller roll off and transponder bonding features are more useful than higher order modulations.


 I'd like to emphasise one point of real use 16/32APSK modulation, it's coming with ACM/VCM mode what is reqiure feedback to provide constant changing the _modulation _, from QPSK to 32APSK depend of conditions media. I'm doubt you'll see higher constellation without constant feedback from ground terminal. If you'll imaging a few million terminals (aka IRD ) scattered around the country...


----------



## stoutman

The next step is for somebody like Sixto to "see" the bird because it is sending data back from the 99 slot. We. everyone else, are then next as the transponders are loaded and we can see it running a scan. Yes, lastly, the final step is to have content. 

Soon....


----------



## HoTat2

stoutman said:


> The next step is for somebody like Sixto to "see" the bird because it is sending data back from the 99 slot. We. everyone else, are then next as the transponders are loaded and we can see it running a scan. Yes, lastly, the final step is to have content.
> 
> Soon....


Yeah. ...

But not from Sixto these days I'm afraid. ...

Now look for this info. to come through Gary Toma from doctor j and or P. Smith.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

Anyone make sense out of this latest TLE

1 40333U 14078B 15032.44734750 -.00000142 00000-0 00000+0 0 9995
2 40333 000.0120 086.4084 0000214 327.2661 139.4173 01.00271930 597

Unless there's an obvious error how can this be a #999 TLE? 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

Sorry about the double post earlier ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

HoTat2 said:


> Unless there's an obvious error how can this be a #999 TLE?


"Starting 2 February, Space-Track.org will include checksums for all available TLEs (& 3LEs) including over 8 million TLEs that did not previously include a checksum. This will provide users with better data integrity & rudimentary error checking.
Additionally, *TLEs will change to constant element number (i.e. 999) to eliminate confusion caused by reusing element numbers after 999 has been reached.*"

I was expecting to see Space-Track count up to 999 then never roll over - but perhaps I misread?


----------



## longrider

That is TLE 57, it is identical to the one I downloaded yesterday morning (except for the element number)

DIRECTV 14 
1 40333U 14078B 15032.44734750 -.00000142 00000-0 00000+0 0 570
2 40333 0.0120 86.4084 0000214 327.2661 139.4173 1.00271930 597

1 40333U 14078B 15032.44734750 -.00000142 00000-0 00000+0 0 9995
2 40333 000.0120 086.4084 0000214 327.2661 139.4173 01.00271930 597

Another interesting comparison is that Celestrac also removes the extra leading zeroes


----------



## James Long

Not providing an incremental element number is not an improvement.


----------



## HoTat2

James Long said:


> Not providing an incremental element number is not an improvement.


I agree;

Not good ...

Now the only way is by inconveniently making note of the epoch time of a given TLE and comparing it with times of others I guess.


----------



## James Long

Looking at the last five the checksum digit is changing. The orbit number is also going up.


----------



## HoTat2

New TLE released which I guess would have been #59 before the recent change to no longer numbering the TLE sets.

1 40333U 14078B 15033.41101426 -.00000141 00000-0 00000+0 0 9990
2 40333 000.0148 094.6260 0000281 293.5813 152.7510 01.00271705 607

Let's go Orbitron folks ... 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## longrider

Here it is;
Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-02-02 09:51:51
Orbit # at Epoch 60
Inclination 0.015
RA of A. Node 94.626
Eccentricity 0.0000281
Argument of Perigee 293.581
Revs per day 1.00271705
Period 23h 56m 05s (1436.8 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 785 x 35 788 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 152.751
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 999 / 1 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A

1DIRECTV 14
Lon 99.2526° W
Lat 0.0250° N
Alt (km) 35 787.220
Azm 171.1°
Elv 43.7°
RA 15h 27m 08s
Decl -6° 09' 48"
Range (km) 37 499.903
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 202.8° (144)
TA 202.8°
Orbit # 61
Mag (illum) ? (47%)
Constellation Lib


----------



## longrider

I guess it is not parked yet, while still "in the box" it has drifted slightly to the west and eccentricity is up a bit

I also ran it through simulation and it stops at 99.2550 before heading back east


----------



## doctor j

Don't like the NEW TLE numbering!!!

10 DIRECTV 14_59
Lon 99.2571° W
Lat 0.0043° S
Alt (km) 35 786.600
Azm 201.8°
Elv 48.8°
RA 18h 25m 07s
Decl -5° 24' 02"
Range (km) 37 150.926
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Descending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 246.5° (175)
TA 246.5°
Orbit # 61

Name 0 DIRECTV 14_59
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-02-03 12:54:32
Orbit # at Epoch 61
Inclination 0.016
RA of A. Node 102.021
Eccentricity 0.0000275
Argument of Perigee 289.507
Revs per day 1.00271602
Period 23h 56m 05s (1436.8 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 786 x 35 788 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 196.206
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 999 / 0 day(s)

Hoping to SEE Great NEW things in DATA Stream tomorrow, ie the 4th

Doctor j


----------



## Diana C

longrider said:


> I guess it is not parked yet, while still "in the box" it has drifted slightly to the west and eccentricity is up a bit
> 
> I also ran it through simulation and it stops at 99.2550 before heading back east


No, it is parked. GEO satellites move through a figure-8 pattern, travelling east and west, north and south. It is far easier to maintain stability this way than trying to keep a satellite motionless, given gravitational variations as the moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun. As long as it stays in the box (which the current orbit does through the 30 days I ran the simulation) it is "parked."


----------



## longrider

Diana C said:


> No, it is parked. GEO satellites move through a figure-8 pattern, travelling east and west, north and south. It is far easier to maintain stability this way than trying to keep a satellite motionless, given gravitational variations as the moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun. As long as it stays in the box (which the current orbit does through the 30 days I ran the simulation) it is "parked."


I understand the figure 8 part, I probably should not have said 'not parked' but it has moved a little to the west. I dont have my notes here but yesterday the pattern moved from 99.235 to about 99.250 which made me expect it to move just a tiny bit east to center the pattern on the assigned 99.235 Instead it moved a tiny bit west leaving the westernmost part of the pattern on the very edge of the box.


----------



## inkahauts

Well they won't call it parked till Thursday will they? Didn't their filing say no earlier than the 5th?


----------



## HoTat2

inkahauts said:


> Well they won't call it parked till Thursday will they? Didn't their filing say no earlier than the 5th?


The 4th ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## cypherx

What will we see on the signal strength screen? I'm out of town until Friday but when I get back I'm curious if theres anything I can look for on either the HR44 or HR24 transponder strength screen.


----------



## YUMA11

This D-14 is 99(s)?


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## HoTat2

YUMA11 said:


> This D-14 is 99(s)?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


No, mainly look out for a new screen to appear soon most likely titled "99(ca)."

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

To expand on the previous post, look for a new "99(ca)" signal strength screen to appear shortly with transponder numbers 9-24 authorized for D14's CONUS beam xpndrs. Just like its Ka-hi band conterpart D12 at 103(ca).

And D14's spotbeam xpndrs will likely integrate into the already existing 99(s) screen, on xpndrs 1-8.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

cypherx said:


> What will we see on the signal strength screen? I'm out of town until Friday but when I get back I'm curious if theres anything I can look for on either the HR44 or HR24 transponder strength screen.


It appears that it needs a firmware update to do this, so if you're running NR firmware you probably won't see 99ca appear until an updated firmware version is released, which may be a few weeks yet.

However, I would bet Directv can add channels without a firmware update that shows the new satellite. The signal strength screen is a convenience, not something that is necessary for viewing those channels.

The first thing might be to look for a new test channel 95xx to appear for 99ca...


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> It appears that it needs a firmware update to do this, so if you're running NR firmware you probably won't see 99ca appear until an updated firmware version is released, which may be a few weeks yet.
> 
> However, I would bet Directv can add channels without a firmware update that shows the new satellite. The signal strength screen is a convenience, not something that is necessary for viewing those channels.
> 
> The first thing might be to look for a new test channel 95xx to appear for 99ca...


True ...

That's why I'm primarily watching for news from doctor j, P. Smith or them reported through Gary Toma for the first evidence of D14 in the Sl tables of the data stream.

Not the appearance of a new signal level screen....

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## HarleyD

slice1900 said:


> It appears that it needs a firmware update to do this, so if you're running NR firmware you probably won't see 99ca appear until an updated firmware version is released, which may be a few weeks yet.
> 
> However, I would bet Directv can add channels without a firmware update that shows the new satellite. The signal strength screen is a convenience, not something that is necessary for viewing those channels.
> 
> The first thing might be to look for a new test channel 95xx to appear for 99ca...


Well, the new 95xx channels aren't in the guide but the existing but the existing test channels for the 99 slot on 9506/9507 have been re-labled 99B Odd and 99B Even. Implying that 99A Odd and 99A Even are in the offing. Much like the four existing test channels for 103 A/B Odd and Even.


----------



## HoTat2

HarleyD said:


> Well, the new 95xx channels aren't in the guide but the existing but the existing test channels for the 99 slot on 9506/9507 have been re-labled 99B Odd and 99B Even. Implying that 99A Odd and 99A Even are in the offing. Much like the four existing test channels for 103 A/B Odd and Even.


While I'll have to check with some of the older TPN maps to be certain. But IIRC 99B odd/even on the 95xx test channels have been way for some time now ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## YUMA11

I have 8 satellite.
101'
110'
119'
99(c)
99(s) no signal
103(s) no signal but now I have 28%
103(ca)
103(cb)
D14 which one,the only 99' empty is 99(s)?


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## longrider

99c will be relabeled 99ca and D14 will be 99cb once activated


----------



## YUMA11

Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## HoTat2

longrider said:


> 99c will be relabeled 99ca and D14 will be 99cb once activated


Correct, except its the other way around. D14's CONUS xpndrs will (or should) use a new 99(ca) and D11's CONUS 99(cb).

In fact "99(cb)" is already dispaying on some receivers instead of just 99c.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

YUMA11 said:


> ...
> 
> 99(s) no signal
> 103(s) no signal but now I have 28%
> ...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


No signal levels on 99(s) or 103(s) save for a 28 reading on the later screen?

What local market are you in I wonder?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Oli74

slice1900 said:


> It appears that it needs a firmware update to do this, so if you're running NR firmware you probably won't see 99ca appear until an updated firmware version is released, which may be a few weeks yet.
> 
> However, I would bet Directv can add channels without a firmware update that shows the new satellite. The signal strength screen is a convenience, not something that is necessary for viewing those channels.
> 
> The first thing might be to look for a new test channel 95xx to appear for 99ca...


When was the last time we had a firmware update?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

Oli74 said:


> When was the last time we had a firmware update?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


For the NR, depends on the model of the receiver. ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## longrider

TLE 59 (using the old numbering system)

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-02-03 12:54:32
Orbit # at Epoch 61
Inclination 0.016
RA of A. Node 102.021
Eccentricity 0.0000275
Argument of Perigee 289.507
Revs per day 1.00271602
Period 23h 56m 05s (1436.8 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 786 x 35 788 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 196.206
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 999 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group N/A

1DIRECTV 14
Lon 99.2527° W
Lat 0.0088° N
Alt (km) 35 785.850
Azm 171.1°
Elv 43.7°
RA 07h 07m 03s
Decl -6° 10' 53"
Range (km) 37 499.824
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 74.4° (53)
TA 74.4°
Orbit # 62
Mag (illum) ? (91%)
Constellation Mon


----------



## P Smith

Oli74 said:


> When was the last time we had a firmware update?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


check logs at www redh com slash dtv


----------



## P Smith

Diana C said:


> No, it is parked. GEO satellites move through a figure-8 pattern, travelling east and west, north and south. It is far easier to maintain stability this way than trying to keep a satellite motionless, given gravitational variations as the moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun. As long as it stays in the box (which the current orbit does through the 30 days I ran the simulation) it is "parked."


I'm adding another important tidbit of station keeping - angular orientation, without that all the sat beams and conus spots will constantly shifted through the country surface and beyond.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> check logs at www redh com slash dtv


That can't tell you when it was updated, all it tells you is what is current and the most recent CEs. Probably the best resource is the release notes forum that Stuart and Scott maintain. Looks like the current Genie NR was released in early December, the H/HR NR in early November.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> That can't tell you when it was updated, all it tells you is what is current and the most recent CEs. Probably the best resource is the release notes forum that Stuart and Scott maintain. Looks like the current Genie NR was released in early December, the H/HR NR in early November.


Actually my Genie just recently updated last week to NR 0x992 on 1/29.

Naturally I thought there would be an update in the SS screens for D14 included in it.

But unless its hidden in the firmware to be enabled for display later, nothing is showing. Only 99(cb) as before.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## studechip

My HR24 shows 99cb. The last update was 12/13 to 0x969.


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> That can't tell you when it was updated, all it tells you is what is current and the most recent CEs. Probably the best resource is the release notes forum that Stuart and Scott maintain. Looks like the current Genie NR was released in early December, the H/HR NR in early November.


All (!) FW versions, not just CEs. Also you could dig into history logs (perhaps with a help from Doug).


----------



## harsh

Yesterday's TLE indicates that DIRECTV is spending a lot of time very near the west end of the box. I wonder what this is about.


----------



## cypherx

Yeah I got 992 on my HR44 as well. I thought for sure the software was for D14 support since it felt rushed and was littered with many bugs until I did a clearmybox 2 keyword search. There STILL hasn't been a thread posted on it, so I'm not sure DirecTV even notified Scott or whoever needs to be notified of its release.


----------



## Laxguy

Interesting point..... Would there typically be new software required for STBs upon the addition of a new sat.?


----------



## Go Beavs

From what I remember with D12 lighting up, the screen was already in the firmware and they simply "turned it on" when they were ready. It was probably added in a previous update and hidden until DIRECTV sent an activation signal.


----------



## longrider

I can say that 99c became 99cb without any software updates


----------



## thelucky1

HoTat2 said:


> Correct, except its the other way around. D14's CONUS xpndrs will (or should) use a new 99(ca) and D11's CONUS 99(cb).
> 
> In fact "99(cb)" is already dispaying on some receivers instead of just 99c.
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Yes my HR24 shows 99(cb)

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## doctor j

HoTat2 said:


> True ...
> 
> That's why I'm primarily watching for news from doctor j, P. Smith or them reported through Gary Toma for the first evidence of D14 in the Sl tables of the data stream.
> 
> Not the appearance of a new signal level screen....
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


No Love from Directv14 today!
Baaa Humbug !!!

Doctor j


----------



## HoTat2

doctor j said:


> No Love from Directv14 today!
> Baaa Humbug !!!
> 
> Doctor j


Yeah. ...

I think we're really looking at the next 10 days or so for any evidence of activity you can see in the system tables.

Right now I'm sure it's just TT&C stuff ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## doctor j

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah. ...
> 
> I think we're really looking at the next 10 days or so for any evidence of activity you can see in the system tables.
> 
> Right now I'm sure it's just TT&C stuff ...
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Daily checks have been suggested.
Will try to comply, time permitting

Doctor j


----------



## slice1900

longrider said:


> I can say that 99c became 99cb without any software updates


That's weird, because when I checked my H24s a couple weeks ago after someone had reported seeing 99cb, I didn't see them. Maybe whatever is delivering this change doesn't hit them all at once?

I guess the true test of delivery method will come with my H20s. If they all get 99ca/99cb but are still on the 1+ year old 0x4239 then we'll know either the change has nothing to do with firmware, or it had been baked into the firmware long ago and just needed the right signal from Directv to enable it.


----------



## Diana C

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah. ...
> 
> I think we're really looking at the next 10 days or so for any evidence of activity you can see in the system tables.
> 
> Right now I'm sure it's just TT&C stuff ...
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Yes, a few days at least. Just because it is "in the box" doesn't mean it is in the correct orientation. I suspect there will a few days of ground measurements made to insure the orientation is as optimal as possible before they start lighting up the transponders. I would then expect another pause before any user view-able content shows up from D14.


----------



## bakers12

That's got to be quite a trick to maintain the proper orientation. They would need the satellite to rotate once per orbit (East/West) while not rotating "vertically," (North/South) nor in a circle (about an axis toward the Earth). Would they use very low-power thrusters to do this?

I expect that, in every orbital maneuver needed to maintain GSO, these corrections would be needed for orientation also.


----------



## fleckrj

bakers12 said:


> That's got to be quite a trick to maintain the proper orientation. They would need the satellite to rotate once per orbit (East/West) while not rotating "vertically," (North/South) nor in a circle (about an axis toward the Earth). Would they use very low-power thrusters to do this?
> 
> I expect that, in every orbital maneuver needed to maintain GSO, these corrections would be needed for orientation also.


Usually that is done with gyroscopes.


----------



## HoTat2

fleckrj said:


> Usually that is done with gyroscopes.


Yep,

Sometime thrusters are used to maintain orientation. But it's primarily accomplished through the common "Three Axis Stabilization" method using spinning reaction wheels as gyroscopes along the three perpendicular axises to produce counter torques to undesired rotational movement of the spacecraft's body in the opposite direction to keep a paripticular orientation constant in the three deminsions.

Thrusters are mainly used for translational movement of the satellite, not rotational which is needed for atitude control.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## bakers12

Thanks for the info. I'll have to look into that some more. So, if the satellite is perfectly oriented, the gyroscopes won't be spinning at all and will not be producing any torque?


----------



## HoTat2

bakers12 said:


> Thanks for the info. I'll have to look into that some more. So, if the satellite is perfectly oriented, the gyroscopes won't be spinning at all and will not be producing any torque?


No, they are always spinning from what I understand, the reaction wheels of the gyros powered by electric motors.

But the rate they spin and thereby the torque they generate on the spacecraft's body is proportional to inputs from accelerometers positioned along each axis that sense and measure angular acceleration about each axis in the opposite direction.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## bakers12

OK, thanks. I found myself a new topic to Google!


----------



## HoTat2

doctor j said:


> Daily checks have been suggested.
> Will try to comply, time permitting
> 
> Doctor j


Oh most assuredly!

Please, do check the SI tables daily and keep us posted.

Its most appreciated. ...

Was just trying to say though that while I hope to see signs of D14 coming alive in the system tables or wherever any day now. I really don't expect it for maybe 10 days or so.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

Gyroscopes used for measures, if need to rotate antennas or whole station used other features.


----------



## harsh

fleckrj said:


> Usually that is done with gyroscopes.


With some spacecraft, planet facing orientation is achieved by having a long pole attached to the front side. Gravity is always trying to pull it towards the planet and it makes a good lever when the alignment isn't correct.


----------



## HoTat2

Though I think its pretty apparent that D14 is parked. Until it actually lights up to begin service I guess its still worthwhile to continue posting the latest TLE releases for the Orbiton folks to run.

So ...

1 40333U 14078B 15036.43386841 -.00000136 00000-0 00000+0 0 9995
2 40333 000.0203 097.0582 0000340 280.1192 174.9867 01.00271666 631

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## spear61

Jens Saetre's site has real time spreadsheets and graphics for all the satellites. Don't need any special programs, all web based.

This is the current motion graph for D14.

http://www.satellite-calculations.com/Satellite/satellitemotion.php?26/171/0/40333


----------



## Laxguy

P Smith said:


> Gyroscopes used for measures, if need to rotate antennas or whole station used other features.


You wanna try that again?


----------



## P Smith

take your time - read related info on Wiki or other specialized web sites; don't worry about my poor wording


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> take your time - read related info on Wiki or other specialized web sites; don't worry about my poor wording


But aren't the big (comparatively speaking) spinning momentum wheels used in three axis stabilization essentially like large gyros on steroids? 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## fleckrj

HoTat2 said:


> But aren't the big (comparatively speaking) spinning momentum wheels used in three axis stabilization essentially like large gyros on steroids?
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Yes. Those momentum wheels are what I called "gyroscopes", and that is what my daughter who designs guidance systems at NASA calls "gyroscopes". Attitude adjustment is made by changing the speed at which one or more of the wheels rotates relative to the other(s).


----------



## slice1900

Gyroscopes can be used to maintain or (when used on a gimbal) to sense orientation. The ones used in smartphones are MEMS gyros, which are more similar to a Foucault pendulum than a traditional gyroscope.


----------



## Diana C

If anyone is interested in how AOCS (Attitude and Orbital Control Systems) works, here is an in-depth analysis of one such system: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1997ESASP.381..569S

I'm not sure what SSL uses, but most AOCS use 4 momentum wheels: 1 to stabilize the satellite along the orbital path and 3 to control its attitude.

In the old days (and for certain classes of spacecraft still today) they would spin the entire satellite in place of the fourth momentum wheel. Obviously, you can't use that if you need antenna(s) pointed in a particular location at all times (at least not without a very complicated gimbal arrangement).


----------



## slice1900

I checked my H24s and still see 99(c) not 99(cb). Maybe only the DVRs have received whatever sort of non-firmware update triggers this change. Not that it matters since the important update will be adding 99(ca).


----------



## jimmie57

I don't have 99(cb) and my receiver is an HR24.


----------



## Oli74

slice1900 said:


> I checked my H24s and still see 99(c) not 99(cb). Maybe only the DVRs have received whatever sort of non-firmware update triggers this change. Not that it matters since the important update will be adding 99(ca).


I have a HR 24/100 the software shows 0x912 last update 11/20

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

Oli74 said:


> I have a HR 24/100 the software shows 0x912 last update 11/20
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What does the 99 SS screen say?

99c or 99cb?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Oli74

HoTat2 said:


> What does the 99 SS screen say?
> 
> 99c or 99cb?
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Where do I see that?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## R0am3r

Oli74 said:


> Where do I see that?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


On my HR44, choose Menu, Settings & Help, Settings, Satellite, View Signal Strength, Dash.


----------



## HoTat2

Oli74 said:


> Where do I see that?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Settings ----->Sat&Antenna------>View Signal Strength

Use the + or - selection on either tuner to scroll to the 99 signal screen. ...

Remember, if you do this while recording somerhing it will be interrupted.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Ken984

Orbitron info from the latest TLE.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-02-05 10:24:46
Orbit # at Epoch 63
Inclination 0.020
RA of A. Node 97.058
Eccentricity 0.0000340
Argument of Perigee 280.119
Revs per day 1.00271666
Period 23h 56m 05s (1436.8 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 785 x 35 788 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 174.987
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 999 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary

1DIRECTV 14
Lon 99.2548° W
Lat 0.0387° S
Alt (km) 35 784.790
Azm 190.1°
Elv 51.7°
RA 02h 22m 51s
Decl -5° 18' 55"
Range (km) 36 964.450
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 19.3° (14)
TA 19.3°
Orbit # 64
Mag (illum) ? (39%)
Constellation Cet


----------



## harsh

Ken984 said:


> Lat 0.0387° S


Slipped out of the box.


----------



## P Smith

harsh said:


> Slipped out of the box.


it's falling from the orbit to earth!!!


----------



## P Smith

fleckrj said:


> Yes. Those momentum wheels are what I called "gyroscopes", and that is what my daughter who designs guidance systems at NASA calls "gyroscopes". Attitude adjustment is made by changing the speed at which one or more of the wheels rotates relative to the other(s).


Perhaps your simplification could be accepted here temporary, but as soon you have knowledge of some components GSO sat, you'll need separate real gyroscopes and momentum wheels as it's different devices with different functions.



slice1900 said:


> I checked my H24s and still see 99(c) not 99(cb). Maybe only the DVRs have received whatever sort of non-firmware update triggers this change. Not that it matters since the important update will be adding 99(ca).


nay, such parts of FW as SS screens and literals will not produce by updates of script type

There is big question if DTV use it; for sure dish doing pushing scrips for temporary adapt some temporary updates - but it does executing from RAM!


----------



## Oli74

HoTat2 said:


> Settings ----->Sat&Antenna------>View Signal Strength
> 
> Use the + or - selection on either tuner to scroll to the 99 signal screen. ...
> 
> Remember, if you do this while recording somerhing it will be interrupted.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


99c

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana C

P Smith said:


> Perhaps your simplification could be accepted here temporary, but as soon you have knowledge of some components GSO sat, you'll need separate real gyroscopes and momentum wheels as it's different devices with different functions...


Yes, technically, gyroscopes detect the spacecraft's orientation and momentum wheels change it.


----------



## fleckrj

Diana C said:


> Yes, technically, gyroscopes detect the spacecraft's orientation and momentum wheels change it.


But aren't the momentum wheels nothing more than gyrostats or gyrodynes, and are they not just a specific type of gyroscope? In other words, all gyrodynes are gyroscopes, but all gyroscopes are not gyrodynes.


----------



## HoTat2

New TLE,

For what its worth now anyway since it's officially parked now as I notice that DIRECTV has formally canceled their need for any further STAs for TT&C for D14's repositioning.

Dismissal--
SES-STA-20150115-00015 E070027 DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC
Application dismissed via email as requested by applicant on January 29, 2015.

1 40333U 14078B 15037.45665535 -.00000133 00000-0 00000+0 0 9995
2 40333 000.0209 097.4170 0000318 282.3381 181.6241 01.00271817  643

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> For what its worth now anyway since it's officially parked now as I notice that DIRECTV has formally canceled their need for any further STAs for TT&C for D14's repositioning.


Does anyone know if the LOA covers actual operation or will there need to be another filing before DIRECTV 14 goes into service?


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Does anyone know if the LOA covers actual operation or will there need to be another filing before DIRECTV 14 goes into service?


Diana said there would be, but given that the FCC filings don't appear on the web site immediately, we may see the filing appear after it has already been granted and D14 is operational.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> 1 40333U 14078B 15037.45665535 -.00000133 00000-0 00000+0 0 9995
> 2 40333 000.0209 097.4170 0000318 282.3381 181.6241 01.00271817 643


According to Jens' admittedly unsophisticated online calculator, DIRECTV 14 is still south of the box at .0293S.

The box is .260W to .210W on the sides and .025N to .025S top and bottom and represents one of several conditions of the license to operate.


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> Diana said there would be, but given that the FCC filings don't appear on the web site immediately, we may see the filing appear after it has already been granted and D14 is operational.


IIRC correctly, that was the pattern with several previous launches (the sat was up and running before the application was on the website). This time it might be different since I don't think DirecTV has a burning need for this capacity right now. They be a bit more leisurely about firing it up.


----------



## Diana C

fleckrj said:


> But aren't the momentum wheels nothing more than gyrostats or gyrodynes, and are they not just a specific type of gyroscope? In other words, all gyrodynes are gyroscopes, but all gyroscopes are not gyrodynes.


Sure, but in the satellite business, that's the terminology.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> IIRC correctly, that was the pattern with several previous launches (the sat was up and running before the application was on the website). This time it might be different since I don't think DirecTV has a burning need for this capacity right now. They be a bit more leisurely about firing it up.


I would guess they'll want to light up the Ka hi portion of D14 and its spotbeams ASAP, as they presumably have a backlog of HD channels and unserved DMAs that have been waiting for this. For RDBS, I agree, they may take their time there since it really doesn't have anything to do at this point beyond testing.


----------



## Ken984

Orbitron data from latest TLE.

Name DIRECTV 14
NORAD # 40333
COSPAR designator 2014-078-B 
Epoch (UTC) 2015-02-06 10:57:35
Orbit # at Epoch 64
Inclination 0.021
RA of A. Node 97.417
Eccentricity 0.0000318
Argument of Perigee 282.338
Revs per day 1.00271817
Period 23h 56m 05s (1436.8 min)
Semi-major axis 42 165 km
Perigee x Apogee 35 785 x 35 788 km
BStar (drag term) 0.000000000 1/ER
Mean anomaly 181.624
Propagation model SDP4
Element number / age 999 / 0 day(s)
StdMag (MaxMag) / RCS N/A
Diameters N/A
Satellite group Geostationary



1DIRECTV 14
Lon 99.2534° W
Lat 0.0406° S
Alt (km) 35 784.790
Azm 190.1°
Elv 51.7°
RA 02h 06m 21s
Decl -5° 19' 03"
Range (km) 36 964.566
RRt (km/s) 0.000
Vel (km/s) 3.075
Direction Ascending
Eclipse No
MA (phase) 12.6° (9)
TA 12.6°
Orbit # 65
Mag (illum) ? (35%)
Constellation Cet


----------



## cypherx

I have a 99cb on my HR24-200. Is that a good sign?


----------



## studechip

cypherx said:


> I have a 99cb on my HR24-200. Is that a good sign?


No, it's been on mine for at least a month. Look for 99ca.


----------



## HoTat2

cypherx said:


> I have a 99cb on my HR24-200. Is that a good sign?


It's apparently a start for preparation of the logically anticipated 99(ca) screen for D14's CONUS beam xpndrs.

Do you know if it recently changed from 99( c ) to 99(cb)?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## mrro82

Forgive my ignorance on this subject but is she considered parked now?


----------



## P Smith

Yes. As being planned 4th of Feb.

I wouldn't call it "she" as all such sats having a lot of erected components and missing a cavern


----------



## cypherx

HoTat2 said:


> It's apparently a start for preparation of the logically anticipated 99(ca) screen for D14's CONUS beam xpndrs.
> 
> Do you know if it recently changed from 99( c ) to 99(cb)?
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Yeah when this subject first came up I'm pretty sure it was just ( c )


----------



## jerrylove56

P Smith said:


> Yes. As being planned 4th of Feb.
> 
> I wouldn't call it "she" as all such sats having a lot of erected components and missing a cavern


LOL


----------



## harsh

mrro82 said:


> Forgive my ignorance on this subject but is she considered parked now?


Given that the most recent TLEs place DIRECTV 14 outside its box, it isn't currently in its licensed position.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Given that the most recent TLEs place DIRECTV 14 outside its box, it isn't currently in its licensed position.


I'm sure DirecTV has a better idea of what they are doing than anyone on the Internet.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Given that the most recent TLEs place DIRECTV 14 outside its box, it isn't currently in its licensed position.


In one of your recent posts you claimed D14's N-S equatorial variance was outside the box, but the last TLE has the orbital inclination at .0209° which puts it within it.

So ....?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

Being in the box or not doesn't matter until it begins operations. If it is briefly outside the box they might be doing some fine tuning like checking how much their uplink beams are affected as it moves around in and outside the box or something like that.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> In one of your recent posts you claimed D14's N-S equatorial variance was outside the box, but the last TLE has the orbital inclination at .0209° which puts it within it.


The software I'm using, GPredict, with the Friday (UTC) TLE places DIRECTV 14 at 99.26W and .04S. These consistent with Ken984's numbers from Orbitron yesterday and those from n2yo.com as I type.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Being in the box or not doesn't matter until it begins operations.


Since the goal to determine when DIRECTV 14 can begin operations, using the latest model to understand when it _cannot_ begin operations is as close as we can get.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> The software I'm using, GPredict, with the Friday (UTC) TLE places DIRECTV 14 at 99.26W and .04S. These consistent with Ken984's numbers from Orbitron yesterday and those from n2yo.com as I type.


I guess I'm missing something here...

How can GPredict have what would mean an orbit inclination of .04° when as even Ken984's orbitron data shows is only .021°?

Isn't the angle of orbital inclination equivalent to the N-S equatorial variance for a geostationary satellite?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## YUMA11

Directv says the satellite begins operations in early second quarter of 2015,wow April?could be before?


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## thelucky1

YUMA11 said:


> Directv says the satellite begins operations in early second quarter of 2015,wow April?could be before?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Link/source?

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## inkahauts

That is what directv has said public ally in the past, I believe in some of the filings and maybe the Conference call with investors. But I wouldn't be surprised to see them fire it up early with some load balancing, and then launch new channels at the start of next quarter since they may be planning some marketing to go along with that which can take some time to prepare and launch.


----------



## Sixto

That date was before testing. Always need to be cautious.


----------



## James Long

Still ... the "promised date" is at least seven weeks away (if one is anal enough to require new channels the first week of April for them to be "early 2nd Quarter"). Worrying about whether the satellite is in the box or out of the box this weekend is completely unneeded and sounds like someone spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.

There is no need to panic. People who know what they are doing are in control.


----------



## P Smith

Yeah, don't elevate their panic


----------



## harsh

Two of the uses for DIRECTV 14 were announced at the 3Q2014 conference call from November 6, 2014:



Michael D. White said:


> And on a related note, our DIRECTV 14 satellite is scheduled to be launched next month on December 4, allowing us to introduce additional 4K channels in 2015 as well as providing important in-orbit backup capacity for our service.


No mention of a quarter or month certain nor any commitment to additional non-UHD channels.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Still ... the "promised date" is at least seven weeks away (if one is anal enough to require new channels the first week of April for them to be "early 2nd Quarter"). Worrying about whether the satellite is in the box or out of the box this weekend is completely unneeded and sounds like someone spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.


This thread isn't about when new channels will be introduced. It is about the progress of DIRECTV 14. The two are not inextricably tied.

Any news we have about when DIRECTV might proceed to the next stage helps towards a better understanding. That DIRECTV 14 cannot move to the next stage until it is consistently in the box is certain.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> That is what directv has said public ally in the past, I believe in some of the filings and maybe the Conference call with investors. But I wouldn't be surprised to see them fire it up early with some load balancing, and then launch new channels at the start of next quarter since they may be planning some marketing to go along with that which can take some time to prepare and launch.


What sort of "marketing" do you think they'd do around "we're scraping the bottom of the barrel to add some minor channels in HD"? If anything, crowing about adding HD channels in 2015 is negative from a marketing perspective, as it would create the impression that Directv was behind everyone else before and is finally catching up.

I don't see any reason why they'd wait if they're ready, and the filings and investor calls were before D14 even launched. Had the launch been delayed too much, it probably would have been pushed back into January as they probably aren't going to launch too close to the holidays. Stating second quarter is being conservative. No one will complain if you beat your commitment, but they might if you fall short of it.

They have another investor call in a couple weeks. If they haven't added any channels by then, and still say second quarter, then we'll know it wasn't being conservative and there is some reason for the apparent delay. I'll bet they've already added some by then, so they can mention their success and take credit for "beating" their previous timeline


----------



## harsh

There's a more recent (from just before 4am PST yesterday) TLE out:

1 40333U 14078B 15038.49703905 -.00000131 00000-0 00000+0 0 9992
2 40333 0.0220 96.3692 0000288 285.3275 195.2477 1.00271835 657

According to GPredict, it places DIRECTV 14 at 99.26W x .01S.


----------



## YUMA11

What is the final point?


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## longrider

YUMA11 said:


> What is the final point?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


99.235 is the licensed location, and as satellites are not perfectly stationary in relation to the earth a tolerance of +-.025 is allowed


----------



## YUMA11

Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Any news we have about when DIRECTV might proceed to the next stage helps towards a better understanding. That DIRECTV 14 cannot move to the next stage until it is consistently in the box is certain.


I agree ... and am looking forward to NEWS about the launch, not rampant speculation and FUD about the satellite not being where it should be. The satellite is right where DirecTV wants it to be. No FUD is needed.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> I agree ... and am looking forward to NEWS about the launch, not rampant speculation and FUD about the satellite not being where it should be.


How does the satellites projected position relative to where it must be to operate constitute fear, uncertainty or doubt?


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> How does the satellites projected position relative to where it must be to operate constitute fear, uncertainty or doubt?


How does your speculation about its position and where it should be constitute news?

We don't need "it's not in the box! it's not in the box!" the sky is falling type of reports.


----------



## PCampbell

I am sure we will have 15 new PPV channels on 1/1/15 :rolling:


----------



## alnielsen

PCampbell said:


> I am sure we will have 15 new PPV channels on 1/1/15 :rolling:


We're well past 1/1/15


----------



## P Smith

Isn't official report about taking control by DTV must be issued this days? Right after the sat placed into its position.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> Isn't official report about taking control by DTV must be issued this days? Right after the sat placed into its position.


Since the FCC site isn't updated immediately, this may have already happened.


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> Isn't official report about taking control by DTV must be issued this days? Right after the sat placed into its position.


That Boeing sent out a press release or two upon hand-off of some previous bird(s) does not equate to a mandate that notice of hand-off must be formally submitted into the public record.


----------



## richall01

I see a number of SD channels in letter box format, is this a sign of things to come? Directv has said in the past that when D 14 was in operation that " All channels that offer HD would be in HD."


----------



## fleckrj

richall01 said:


> I see a number of SD channels in letter box format, is this a sign of things to come? Directv has said in the past that when D 14 was in operation that " All channels that offer HD would be in HD."


The fact that many SD channels are in letterbox format is that most providers no longer distribute a SD signal. The HD signal is downconverted to create the letterboxed SD. Even if DirecTV does the downconversion, in addition to the space on the satellites, DirecTV must have a contract with the provider that allows DirecTV to distribute the HD version.

In the past, the target for offering everything in HD was 2016. Based on the D14 actual and D15 projected launch dates, 2016 still seems realistic.


----------



## slice1900

richall01 said:


> I see a number of SD channels in letter box format, is this a sign of things to come? Directv has said in the past that when D 14 was in operation that " All channels that offer HD would be in HD."


Where did they ever say that? I'm sure they did not, but it was merely wishful thinking on the part of some. There will always be some channels offered in HD by their owners that are not delivered in HD by a provider. Directv may not have the rights, would have to pay more for HD (or wish to be paid more in the case of public interest channels) or simply decide the viewership is so low it isn't worth it.


----------



## PCampbell

PCampbell said:


> I am sure we will have 15 new PPV channels on 1/1/15 :rolling:


I ment 4/1/15


----------



## James Long

PCampbell said:


> I ment 4/1/15


April Fools!


----------



## texasbrit

Those TPs are NA on my system (HR34 and HR20), i.e. they do not exist. Never have.


----------



## Curtis0620

This morning I see 99ca with 9 transponders at 0 signal.


----------



## HoTat2

lzhj9k said:


> Those TP's are at 0 on my Genie HR-34 (SW-0992)
> 
> and TP's 21-24 and 25-32 are all N/A


There must be some kind if firmware error in your receiver causing those transponders to display zeros as though those additional xpndrs available for use.

103( cb ), i.e. CONUS beam xpndrs on the Ka B-band at 103W, can only have a maximum if 14. Listed as 1-14 in DIRECTV's numbering scheme for display in the receiver settings.

EDIT: Correction, just checked and I'm seeing xpndrs 15-20 showing zero as well on my Genie (HR34). No 99(ca) though. ..

Don't know what this is about ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Oli74

HoTat2 said:


> There must be some kind if firmware error in your receiver causing those transponders to display zeros as though those additional xpndrs available for use.
> 
> 103(cb), i.e. CONUS beam xpndrs on the Ka B-band at 103W, can only have a maximum if 14. Listed as 1-14 in DIRECTV's numbering scheme for display in the receiver settings.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


I never understood the meaning of cb or Ka B but now I follow theses forums I'm learning everyday thanks you all

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

Curtis0620 said:


> This morning I see 99ca with 9 transponders at 0 signal.


Hey, some signs of life from D14! (for us on the subscriber end of things that is).

Can you post a screen shot of 99(ca)?

Still too early in the morning out here on the WC to run around checking all my other receivers right now ... 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Renard

Yes me too I can see 99(ca) now. (HR20-700). No signal so far.

11- 0, 12-N/A, 13-0, 14-0, 15-0, 16-0
17-0,18-0,19-0,20-0


----------



## cypherx

So there's 9 tps? At 6 HD a tp we could see 54 new HD channels.


----------



## HoTat2

cypherx said:


> So there's 9 tps? At 6 HD a tp we could see 54 new HD channels.


There should be 16 for 99(ca), unless not all are listed yet.

But the six additional xpndrs that have now appeared on 99( cb ) is baffling unless for some reason DIRECTV is planning to somehow convert six of D11's spotbeam xpndrs from 99(s) to CONUS beam ones ....

EDIT: OK, have on good authority now that the new appearance of xpndrs 15-20 on 99( cb ) is a firmware glitch as I thought earlier, so ignore it ... 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## cypherx

Oh it was probobly just malformed xml that put the additional tps under the wrong sat (cb) I guess. I bet it will be corrected in the data stream soon. No big deal.

Thanks for the clarification. 16 tps fully loaded would be 96 more HD channels. Then we have all of D15 to look forward too, plus RDBS I guess. Should be an interesting year!


----------



## slice1900

cypherx said:


> Oh it was probobly just malformed xml that put the additional tps under the wrong sat (cb) I guess. I bet it will be corrected in the data stream soon. No big deal.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. 16 tps fully loaded would be 96 more HD channels. Then we have all of D15 to look forward too, plus RDBS I guess. Should be an interesting year!


D15 will not add any new HD transponders, only D14 does. The 16 new 99ca tpns will not be used exclusively for HD, Directv still adds new MPEG4 SD channels. There are other things Directv may also use the added capacity for - at least I think they will, but we won't know for sure until a bit later (there are other ways to accomplish some of these things depending on the desired timeline)

1) mirroring the channels on 95 so a second dish is no longer required for international packages
2) mirroring the channels on 119 so all new installs use the SL3 LNB only
3) 4K testing until all the pieces are in place to begin using RDBS

I'm sure if you added up all HD channels unavailable on Directv that are available on Dish, FIOS, Comcast, TWC, or Cox you couldn't come close to 96 anyway.


----------



## Gary Toma

Interesting that we expect 16 transponders to be added. And now we find 10 were added as 99CA and 6 were added as 99CB. 

It will be even more interesting to see if it is just a 'firmware glitch'.


----------



## slice1900

Gary Toma said:


> Interesting that we expect 16 transponders to be added. And now we find 10 were added as 99CA and 6 were added as 99CB.
> 
> It will be even more interesting to see if it is just a 'firmware glitch'.


We know how many transponders they're adding and where they'll be because of the FCC filings. It is definitely a firmware glitch, as D14 has no Ka lo transponders!


----------



## YUMA11

I still have 9(c) and 9(s),H24-700.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## HoTat2

YUMA11 said:


> I still have 9(c) and 9(s),H24-700.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


AIUI, the new 99ca signal screen for D14, at least in it's initial appearance of just 10 xpndrs, is only visible on those receivers running "other firmware."

While apparently the preparation process to display the future 99ca has triggered the erroneous display of xpndrs 15-20 on the 99c/cb signal screens of receivers running NR firmware.

Confusing situation at the moment. ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## doctor j

DATA stream today confirm some movement on D14
The TPN table has 18 (9x2) new entries. It does skip the first pair left polarized channel (40 MHz spaced channels)

I have no clue what this means but is some of the activity we've been expecting.

I've sent the data to the "brains" for analysis. I just collect it 

Doctor j


----------



## HoTat2

doctor j said:


> DATA stream today confirm some movement on D14
> The TPN table has 18 (9x2) new entries. It does skip the first pair left polarized channel (40 MHz spaced channels)
> 
> I have no clue what this means but is some of the activity we've been expecting.
> 
> I've sent the data to the "brains" for analysis. I just collect it
> 
> Doctor j


At first glance it sounds like it's related to the RDBS band which xpndr payload is 18 with 9 RHCP and 9 LHCP....

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> At first glance it sounds like it's related to the RDBS band which xpndr payload is 18 with 9 RHCP and 9 LHCP....
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Nope, all IFs are the same as for Ka-Hi D12 tpns, plus same SR=30M,A3/QPSK and FEC 2/3 for the new tpns..
Somehow missed tpn#12, perhaps after amelioration it will be up  (may be it's on but not in SI tables yet) with other 4 or six [21...24 and 9/10]


----------



## slice1900

Seeing 18 new entries makes perfect sense. 16 new tpns for CONUS Ka hi, 2 new tpns for Ka hi spot beams - currently 99s shows tpns 1-6 for SW2, D14 will allow using the full set of 1-8. That fits in perfectly with doctor j's "skip" because the 62.5 MHz tpns for SW2 don't line up with the standard 36 MHz tpns D14 is using. D14 spot beam tpns 5-6 are the only ones that aren't covered by SW2; 1-4 and 7-8 are.


----------



## doctor j

NO there are only 9

Double entries of same info
5 Rt and 4 Lt polarized TPN 40 MHz wide. TPN's 11,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20

Doctor j


----------



## doctor j

P Smith said:


> Nope, all IFs are the same as for Ka-Hi D12 tpns, plus same SR=30M,A3/QPSK and FEC 2/3 for the new tpns..
> Somehow missed tpn#12, perhaps after amelioration it will be up  (may be it's on but not in SI tables yet) with other 4 or six [21...24 and 9/10]


Thanks

Doctor j


----------



## slice1900

Ah OK, guess they are still working out the kinks or won't be enabling all the new transponders at once for some reason.


----------



## cypherx

HR24-200 screen








HR44-500 on 0x992 firmware
No ca screen, just cb...


----------



## inkahauts

They are just messing with us.. 

I'm sure they fire it up fully when they are ready.


----------



## cypherx

Which should be soon I would think...


----------



## studechip

It's supposed to go live on the 20th according to the other site.


----------



## slice1900

studechip said:


> It's supposed to go live on the 20th according to the other site.


Wonder why it is going live with only 7 of 16 transponders at first, and such a seemingly random assortment of them? I get that they don't have 16 transponders worth of stuff lined up so they don't need them all, but it seems strange.

Anyone remember if they ever did anything like this when they lit up D10, D11 or D12?


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Wonder why it is going live with only 7 of 16 transponders at first, and such a seemingly random assortment of them? I get that they don't have 16 transponders worth of stuff lined up so they don't need them all, but it seems strange.
> 
> Anyone remember if they ever did anything like this when they lit up D10, D11 or D12?


I thought it was 9 CONUS xpndrs active for 99ca at last report?

Also, another individual I know who can see D14's signals on one of his boxes recently reported in, well let's just say "another forum" here, that he's now seeing xpndrs 7 and 8 along with 1-6 on 99s active as well.

So apparently, at least some of D14's spotbeams are active too.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN

I'm getting signals on 11 transponders on the 99S satellite signal on 1 & 15,16 17 through 24


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## YUMA11

I have strong signal 99% now
Transponder 15,21,22,23,24.
Satellite 99(s)


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> Wonder why it is going live with only 7 of 16 transponders at first, and such a seemingly random assortment of them? I get that they don't have 16 transponders worth of stuff lined up so they don't need them all, but it seems strange.
> 
> Anyone remember if they ever did anything like this when they lit up D10, D11 or D12?


It's not live yet... It's still being fired up....


----------



## Sixto

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1076605

"This is to inform you that, in accordance with the authorizations granted by the Commission, the DIRECTV 14 satellite (call sign S2869) and the DIRECTV RB-1 payload (call sign S2711) were successfully placed into orbit and subsequently began commercial operations at the 99.235º W.L. orbital location on January 26, 2015."


----------



## HoTat2

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> I'm getting signals on 11 transponders on the 99S satellite signal on 1 & 15,16 17 through 24
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk





YUMA11 said:


> I have strong signal 99% now
> Transponder 15,21,22,23,24.
> Satellite 99(s)
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Again, for folks who don't already have it (which are still most I gather). Mainly look for 99(ca) to appear among the signal level screens.

And if you have 99(ca) you "may" also now show xpndrs 7 and 8 as active along with the previous numbers 1-6 and 15-24 on the 99(s) screen from D14's spotbeam payload going active as well.

All other readings such as the ones above are not relavent to the issue.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

so far we have SI tables new values ]new tpns] for 99(c.), so please do reports for tpns#9...24 of THE screen

spot beams has no changes (perhaps D14 will substitute physical tpns while system will keep logical number intact and we will get no such info from system tables)


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> so far we have SI tables new values ]new tpns] for 99(c.), so please do reports for tpns#9...24 of THE screen
> 
> spot beams has no changes (perhaps D14 will substitute physical tpns while system will keep logical number intact and we will get no such info from system tables)


Though while I agree that it is important at this point to report on updates to the status of 99(ca).

I do hope that unlike with the spotbeam payloads of D10 and 12 or D9S and 4S. The TID number ranges of SW2 and and D14 are unique and not overlap one another so you can identify the actual host satellite this time.

Thus no "D14 or SW2" in LiL listings of the TPN maps ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

I've not seen new SB TIDs off D14 ... would you post the ranges of SW2 and D14?


----------



## HarleyD

Sixto said:


> http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1076605
> 
> "This is to inform you that, in accordance with the authorizations granted by the Commission, the DIRECTV 14 satellite (call sign S2869) and the DIRECTV RB-1 payload (call sign S2711) were successfully placed into orbit and subsequently began commercial operations at the 99.235º W.L. orbital location on January 26, 2015."


But...but...it's been out of the box since then.

OUT OF THE BOX I TELLS YA'!


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> I've not seen new SB TIDs off D14 ... would you post the ranges of SW2 and D14?


No, I meant when D14's SB data appears in the SI tables I hope it uses a distinctly different TID range than SW2 to distinguish between the two satellite's spotbeams.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## RAD

HarleyD said:


> But...but...it's been out of the box since then.
> 
> OUT OF THE BOX I TELLS YA'!


 :rotfl:


----------



## Oli74

Ok I see 99(c), 99(s), 103(s), 103(ca) and 103(cb) on my HR24/100 whats does it all means?? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

Oli74 said:


> Ok I see 99(c), 99(s), 103(s), 103(ca) and 103(cb) on my HR24/100 whats does it all means??
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's means "relax". We have knowledgeable ppl who are in charge.


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> No, I meant when D14's SB data appears in the SI tables I hope it uses a distinctly different TID range than SW2 to distinguish between the two satellite's spotbeams.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Well, you could use Gary's matrix and try assign free TID numbers to new D14 tpns. If you find enough of them .


----------



## harsh

HarleyD said:


> But...but...it's been out of the box since then.
> 
> OUT OF THE BOX I TELLS YA'!


Apparently this is a problem with Orbitron (that as of yesterday still showed DIRECTV 14 as outside the box). Something to remember for DIRECTV 15.


----------



## HoTat2

Oli74 said:


> Ok I see 99(c), 99(s), 103(s), 103(ca) and 103(cb) on my HR24/100 whats does it all means??
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Briefly it all means the following ...

99(ca)* (Network 100*) = CONUS beam Ka A-band xpndrs from D14 at 99W.

99( c ) or 99(cb) (Network 10) = CONUS beam Ka B-band xpndrs from from D11 at 99W.

99(s) (Network 11) = Spotbeam Ka A and B band xpndrs from the spotbeam payloads of D11, SW2 and/or D14.

103(s) (Network 14) = Spotbeam Ka A and B band xpndrs from the spotbeam payloads of SW1, D10 and/or D12).

103(ca) (Network 150*) = CONUS beam Ka A-band xpndrs from D12 at 103W.

103(cb) (Network 15) = CONUS beam Ka B-band xpndrs from D10 at 103W..

Of course for a much fuller and elegant graphical presentation of this, see Gary's Domestic TPN maps under the "Network Decoder" tab in the "Tips and Resources" forum.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*NOTES:

Networks 100 and 150 for 99(ca) and 103(ca) respectively are actually internal generated receiver Net. ID codes in the System Diagnostics menu which are not present in the system tables of the active data stream from the satellites. In the system tables they are combined with 99(cb) and 103(cb) under Nets. 10 and 15.

Only a few subs.' receivers are displaying 99(ca) at present. And when it appears receivers displaying 99( c ) will see a division into 99(ca) and 99(cb).


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> No, I meant when D14's SB data appears in the SI tables I hope it uses a distinctly different TID range than SW2 to distinguish between the two satellite's spotbeams.


What would be the benefit to Directv to do this? It is probably simpler for them to use the same TIDs; I think it is pretty well established they aren't making decisions based on what is easier for us to understand 

That said, this might not be a problem for D14's spotbeams if SW2 is no longer used for CONUS spotbeams. There are several other things it might possibly do instead. Or perhaps the different numbering of Spaceway transponders versus standard 36 MHz might necessitate different TIDs, depending on how the TIDs are used by the receiver.


----------



## fleckrj

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't "CONUS spotbeam" an oxymoron?


----------



## peds48

fleckrj said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but isn't "CONUS spotbeam" an oxymoron?


Yes, it is. Perhaps he meant, "CONUS, Spot-beams"


----------



## slice1900

fleckrj said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but isn't "CONUS spotbeam" an oxymoron?


Sorry, I was trying to distinguish between spotbeams for the continental US versus spotbeams for Hawaii/Alaska/Puerto Rico.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Sorry, I was trying to distinguish between spotbeams for the continental US versus spotbeams for Hawaii/Alaska/Puerto Rico.


For DIRECTV, it appears the Ka band "D" type birds at 99 and 103 use CONUS beams that cover the US continent plus Alaska for national programming.

Thus they are actually termed "CONUS+" beams and are probably another reason in addition to the Ku ones for the need of a larger dish in AK.

For Hawaii and Puerto Rico, spotbeams, LiL or solely for redirected CONUS, carry the national programming feeds from the CONUS+ beam transponders' receive sections, apparently "redirected" through parallel paths and dedicated TWTAs into the spotbeams for HI and PR.

The older Ku band birds at 101 and 119, all use CONUS+ beams to cover the US mainland, AK, and HI Thus the need for the larger 1.2-1.8m dishes in AK. and HI as they lie on the edges of the beams. And is why the 110 satellite is needed to exclusively serve PR for Ku band services since the 101 and 119 satellites are needed for the US, AK. and HI, and can't hit PR at the same time.

NOTES: I'm not sure if the World Direct service from G3C is using the N.A. or N.A. + PR downlink beam to make WD available in PR or if either beam can reach over to the Hawaiian islands to make the service available that far west either.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## kevinwmsn

I think you meant AK instead of AL for Alaska. Though the larger dishes might help with some of the severe thunderstorms we get down here in Alabama.


----------



## HoTat2

kevinwmsn said:


> I think you meant AK instead of AL for Alaska. Though the larger dishes might help with some of the severe thunderstorms we get down here in Alabama.


I did mean AK... 

Thanks, since corrected. ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

Someone got 99s new tpns reading - what about you ?


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> Someone got 99s new tpns reading - what about you ?


Got 99(ca) on my Genie now, but unfortunately 99(s) still reads as it always does on all our boxes with xpndrs 1-8 listed as N/A.

At last report though someone posted awhile back in the "other forum" they're seeing xpndrs 7 and 8 enabled on their "99(ca) capable" (for want of a better term) receiver(s). IIRC, Xpndr 7 was reading a 57 and 8 was at 0.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Jon J

For me signal strengths on 99 c and s are much lower than usual.


----------



## lwilli201

Jon J said:


> For me signal strengths on 99 c and s are much lower than usual.


If you are in Nashville, you may have ice or snow (or both) on your dish.


----------



## HoTat2

Jon J said:


> For me signal strengths on 99 c and s are much lower than usual.





lwilli201 said:


> If you are in Nashville, you may have ice or snow (or both) on your dish.


Yeah ... lower signal levels on 99c and s should not be related to D14 coming alive.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Jon J

The 99(c) numbers in the 70s instead of the usual high 90s were *after* I deiced.


----------



## lwilli201

How is you dish mounted? Did you notice any movement of the dish while deicing?


----------



## R0am3r

HoTat2 said:


> Got 99(ca) on my Genie now, but unfortunately 99(s) still reads as it always does on all our boxes with xpndrs 1-8 listed as N/A.
> 
> At last report though someone posted awhile back in the "other forum" they're seeing xpndrs 7 and 8 enabled on their "99(ca) capable" (for want of a better term) receiver(s). IIRC, Xpndr 7 was reading a 57 and 8 was at 0.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


No sign of 99(ca) on my H44-200. I wonder what triggers the receiver to start showing this new satellite. Is your Genie running the stock 0x0987 firmware?


----------



## HoTat2

R0am3r said:


> No sign of 99(ca) on my H44-200. I wonder what triggers the receiver to start showing this new satellite. Is your Genie running the stock 0x0987 firmware?


See my PM on this ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary Toma

HoTat2 said:


> Got 99(ca) on my Genie now, but unfortunately 99(s) still reads as it always does on all our boxes with xpndrs 1-8 listed as N/A.
> 
> At last report though someone posted awhile back in the "other forum" they're seeing xpndrs 7 and 8 enabled on their "99(ca) capable" (for want of a better term) receiver(s). IIRC, Xpndr 7 was reading a 57 and 8 was at 0.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


I too now have 99CA on my HR44. In addition, it has also added TPNs 7 and 8 to the 99S display. Historically, SW2 had TPNs 1-6 and 7-14 were all n/a entries.

The new TPN 7 reads 0, but the new TPN 8 reads a 65 signal strength - alive. TPNs 9-14 remain n/a entries.

I have no idea what is going on here. TPNs 7 and 8 are not even in the SI data.


----------



## fleckrj

Whether you get a reading on a transponder on 99s depends on where you live and where it is pointed.


----------



## HoTat2

Gary Toma said:


> ...
> 
> I have no idea what is going on here. TPNs 7 and 8 are not even in the SI data.


Nothing huh?

Strange, ... while I suspected D14's spotbeam xpndrs 1-6 TID numbers might overlap with SW2, xpndrs 7 and 8 should have unique TIDs I would think.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

fleckrj said:


> Whether you get a reading on a transponder on 99s depends on where you live and where it is pointed.


And also on whether or not DIRECTV even authorizes a given spotbeam transponder to register anything at all by blanking it out altogether with an N/A. 

When it comes to spotbeam xpndrs outside those which carry programming for a particular market, I find no discernable pattern or policy as to which other spot xpndrs a receiver will display and what will ahow as N/A.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> And also on whether or not DIRECTV even authorizes a given spotbeam transponder to register anything at all by blanking it out altogether with an N/A.
> 
> When it comes to spotbeam xpndrs outside those which carry programming for a particular market, I find no discernable pattern or policy as to which other spot xpndrs a receiver will display and what will ahow as N/A.


I'm confused by this, and your earlier post. Are you saying that some people will see a 99s/103s tpn as N/A and others will see it with a reading? You said earlier you see N/A for 1-8 on 99s? I suppose you don't need it, since you're in LA and your locals come via 103s, but it seems odd that Directv would even bother with something like that.

If they want to block out spot beams that aren't relevant to you (perhaps a reasonable idea to avoid confusion amongst people think all those zeroes and low readings in 99s/103s indicate a problem) why not block out ALL spot beams that aren't relevant to the account holder's zip code, meaning you would see N/A for everything on 99s and 103s except 103s 19, 21, and 22?

Now you've got me curious to check out my 99s/103s and see if I have any 'missing' transponders that show up in Gary's transponder map spreadsheet but are displayed as N/A on my receiver. My locals are 103s tpn 21, maybe I have N/A on 99s 1-6 but never noticed it...


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> I'm confused by this, and your earlier post. Are you saying that some people will see a 99s/103s tpn as N/A and others will see it with a reading? You said earlier you see N/A for 1-8 on 99s? I suppose you don't need it, since you're in LA and your locals come via 103s, but it seems odd that Directv would even bother with something like that.
> 
> If they want to block out spot beams that aren't relevant to you (perhaps a reasonable idea to avoid confusion amongst people think all those zeroes and low readings in 99s/103s indicate a problem) why not block out ALL spot beams that aren't relevant to the account holder's zip code, meaning you would see N/A for everything on 99s and 103s except 103s 19, 21, and 22?
> 
> Now you've got me curious to check out my 99s/103s and see if I have any 'missing' transponders that show up in Gary's transponder map spreadsheet but are displayed as N/A on my receiver. My locals are 103s tpn 21, maybe I have N/A on 99s 1-6 but never noticed it...


Sorry if I was confusing. ..

What I was trying to say is that for the spotbeams, the Ka ones, which ones display levels beyond the ones that carry the LiL programming for a market and which ones are blanked out many times doesn't follow a logical pattern.

Just like in this market nothing comes from 99s, yet two xpndrs, 19 and 21 are active with readings in the high 90 ties, and all else N/A. Why?

103s is logical here with only xpndrs 19, 21, and 22 active (all normally displaying 100) and all others N/A. But why don't 99s logically show everything as N/A?

Other markets confusingly do this as well with some irrelavent Ka spot xpndrs active and showing levels whereas others are N/A.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## KyL416

HoTat2 said:


> Just like in this market nothing comes from 99s, yet two xpndrs, 19 and 21 are active with readings in the high 90 ties, and all else N/A. Why?


Palm Springs has their locals on 99s TPN 19 and Odessa has their locals on 99s TPN 21. The spotbeams don't suddenly drop to 0 at the edge of a DMA, depending on the size of the DMA and where the spotbeam is centered it can be over 100 miles past the border before it starts dipping.

It does have a nice advantage of allowing them to remap stations from one DMA into a neighboring DMA for cases of statewide stations. i.e. WMUR Manchester is based in the Boston DMA but it's available in all of New Hamsphire. The NJTV feed from the Philly DMA is remapped to channel 50 for the NYC DMA. The CPTV feed from the Hartford DMA is remapped to channel 49 for the NYC DMA.


----------



## cypherx

Still just showing 99cb on HR44 running the newest slow push NR 0x992. For 99s I have 79, 72 on tp 5,6, and 76 on tp 15, high 90's on tp's 16,20,24 and 77 on tp23.

On 99cb I have high 90's from 1-14. 15-20 are 0 and the rear NA.

I'm in the Philly market.


----------



## YUMA11

I have strong signal 99% now
Transponder 15,21,22,23,24.
Satellite 99(s).H24-700
Miami market.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## latinosat

I have 91% now on transponders 20,16,15 .denver market.satellite 99(s) is this the D14?


----------



## HoTat2

latinosat said:


> I have 91% now on transponders 20,16,15 .denver market.satellite 99(s) is this the D14?


No, the evidence of D14 is the presence of a new screen called 99(ca) that represents its nationwide beam which only a few receivers can get right now early on.

Additional, though more complex, if a receiver can see 99ca, then it might also see evidence of D14's spotbeams "at least" by the presence of transponders 7 and 8 on the 99s screen. D14's spotbeam xpndr numbers range from 1-8, but Spaceway 2's number is from 1-6 or 1-4 if D14's national beam xpndrs 9 and 10 are active. So due to the uncertain overlap from SW2, the only sure evidence from the 99s screen is the appearance of xpndrs 7 and 8.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## latinosat

thanks hottat2.any official announcement went go live?


----------



## HoTat2

latinosat said:


> thanks hottat2.any official announcement went go live?


"Live" in a technical sense, though not fully, it already is.

"Live" as far as broadcasting actual programming?

Unknown (to us that is) at this point ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

latinosat said:


> thanks hottat2.any official announcement went go live?


DIRECTV has an interesting sense of when to claim that a satellite goes "into commercial service". This time around, it is apparently the hand-off date.


----------



## fleckrj

It was the day after the handoff date for D12. That seems to be the norm, since it is in DirecTV's control on that day. Just because it is not yet providing programming to customers does not mean that it is not in service.


----------



## harsh

fleckrj said:


> It was the day after the handoff date for D12. That seems to be the norm, since it is in DirecTV's control on that day. Just because it is not yet providing programming to customers does not mean that it is not in service.


There is a difference between operational and in commercial service in my mind. DIRECTV 5 was operational for quite a while but I submit that it didn't resume commercial service until it starting carrying programming destined for PR.


----------



## slice1900

It doesn't matter what you think the terminology should be. With the number of satellites Directv has launched, they will be fully aware of the terminology the FCC wishes them to use. If you dug through Dish's filings I'll bet you'd find they also claim to start 'commercial operations' before channels appear.


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> There is a difference between operational and in commercial service in my mind. DIRECTV 5 was operational for quite a while but I submit that it didn't resume commercial service until it starting carrying programming destined for PR.


Luckily what's in your mind doesn't count for dtv dish, fcc or anyone else when it comes to terminology.

To me in service means it's working and in place to broadcast. Just because a retail building has a certificate of occupancy doesn't mean that they have to be open to customers 24 hours....


----------



## slice1900

As well "operational" can mean it is broadcasting something. What it is broadcasting might not be intended for customers right away, as Directv continues to do some fine tuning. The signals they broadcast at first may be something only special test equipment can make any sense of, as they characterize each transponder to determine how linear it is, what its CNR is, and so forth.


----------



## PCampbell

RELAX It will come on line soooooon.


----------



## P Smith

It's online already - we have signals, streams, packets, system tables - enough to constitute that without official statement...
channels will be send soon, perhaps when all [small and big] problems will be solved


----------



## bobnielsen

They also need to send a software update to rename 99(c) to 99 (cb) and add 99(ca) for D14 so the receivers will know where to tune.


----------



## P Smith

nope, the names are made for you/customers only, perhaps for clueless CSR too

receivers will works just fine without the mentioned above changes


----------



## YUMA11

Yes,I agree with you,the last software was 11/25/14.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## cypherx

992 is on a slow spool nightly around 3 am pst for all genies. I have 992 but I can tell you the ca screen is still not on this release. 99ca information is just appended at the tail end of 99c screen. The extra spot beams are also just appended at the end of 99s.

http://redh.com/dtv/index.php?r=HR


----------



## slice1900

bobnielsen said:


> They also need to send a software update to rename 99(c) to 99 (cb) and add 99(ca) for D14 so the receivers will know where to tune.


I'm not sure such a software update will be necessary for the receiver to tune to a channel on 99ca, it may only matter for it to display the signal strength screen. To tune a channel the receiver only needs the polarity and center frequency for the transponder containing the channel. That's true for both legacy receivers (which do this directly) and SWM receivers (which tell the SWM the polarity/frequency of the transponder they want in the assigned SWM channel)

What if any steps are necessary to get from the guide data to the polarity/frequency pair I have no idea. Maybe Gary knows. Maybe the network ID stuff fits into this, or maybe that is something completely separate.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> I'm not sure such a software update will be necessary for the receiver to tune to a channel on 99ca, it may only matter for it to display the signal strength screen. To tune a channel the receiver only needs the polarity and center frequency for the transponder containing the channel. That's true for both legacy receivers (which do this directly) and SWM receivers (which tell the SWM the polarity/frequency of the transponder they want in the assigned SWM channel)
> 
> What if any steps are necessary to get from the guide data to the polarity/frequency pair I have no idea. Maybe Gary knows. Maybe the network ID stuff fits into this, or maybe that is something completely separate.


Yeah...

Even though they may need a FW update to display 99ca the SS screens are really for our's and maybe DIRECTV tech support's convenience. The receiver itself doesn't need them to tune to the right xpndrs.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> I'm not sure such a software update will be necessary for the receiver to tune to a channel on 99ca, it may only matter for it to display the signal strength screen. To tune a channel the receiver only needs the polarity and center frequency for the transponder containing the channel. That's true for both legacy receivers (which do this directly) and SWM receivers (which tell the SWM the polarity/frequency of the transponder they want in the assigned SWM channel)
> 
> What if any steps are necessary to get from the guide data to the polarity/frequency pair I have no idea. Maybe Gary knows. Maybe the network ID stuff fits into this, or maybe that is something completely separate.


No software updates are required to receive from D14. It will just be a bunch of new frequencies from 99. The receivers don't even receive those frequencies anymore, the SWM does. The SWM already knows how to process those frequencies, since it does it already at 103.

All the receivers need to do is request the right frequency from the right slot. All it needs to do that is the channel map, which is updated whenever they add or move a channel.

Even a legacy setup with an old style switch is good to go...D14 will just show up as new IF signals from 99 slot. Again, the channel map is all the receiver needs, and that is decoupled from software updates.

The receiver would need an update if a new SLOT comes into being...such as RDBS. That will require the SWM to select a new LNB section and the receivers need to know how to request it. But even that doesn't require a full software update, just the SWM interface code which can be updated independently, I believe.


----------



## 1948GG

It appears that something in the 'mapping' of the HD/Ka slots to the actual channels is 'out of wack' as right as of the timestamp on this message, various HD channels are comming up as 'no signal'. Appears to be no real rhyme or reason as to which; their SD equivilents are, of course, running just fine.

Weather Channel/HD is one that is 'off line', as well as MSNBC/HD. Maybe at some point it'll get 'fixed' by some kind of re-mapping signal sent down.


----------



## KyL416

It's a known issue with 103cb and they're working on it:
http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/216619-signal-issues-of-late/


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> The receiver would need an update if a new SLOT comes into being...such as RDBS. That will require the SWM to select a new LNB section and the receivers need to know how to request it. But even that doesn't require a full software update, just the SWM interface code which can be updated independently, I believe.


Depends on how it is handled. Both legacy and SWM have two additional slots they know how to talk to - flex1 & flex2. Since it looks almost certain RDBS will only be used on 4K receivers, they won't have to worry about implementing it on existing receivers so I guess it is all academic.


----------



## 1948GG

KyL416 said:


> It's a known issue with 103cb and they're working on it:
> http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/216619-signal-issues-of-late/


Pretty obvious that whoever was 'in charge' of the D-14 'roll-up' made a monumental error in trying to do everything at once, in one fell swoop.

This has been apparently going on for hours (I would have noticed in but for spending hours at a local auto repair shop), so why hasn't DirecTV put up a channel/card with some info, to perhaps slow down the amount of calls into customer service, which I'm sure as soon as the bell strikes 5pm on the east coast and folks start arriving home (those who weren't 'stuck' there as it was due to the weather!) the CSR lines will be jammed even with the message at the top of the call.

Get out in front of your screw-up, and admit it was your fault.


----------



## KyL416

They put a channel card up on the affected channels over an hour ago.


----------



## 1948GG

Well, it only took them 2+ hours, but the finally put a bit of an 'explaination card' up on those whacked channels.


----------



## Diana C

1948GG said:


> Pretty obvious that whoever was 'in charge' of the D-14 'roll-up' made a monumental error in trying to do everything at once, in one fell swoop.
> 
> This has been apparently going on for hours (I would have noticed in but for spending hours at a local auto repair shop), so why hasn't DirecTV put up a channel/card with some info, to perhaps slow down the amount of calls into customer service, which I'm sure as soon as the bell strikes 5pm on the east coast and folks start arriving home (those who weren't 'stuck' there as it was due to the weather!) the CSR lines will be jammed even with the message at the top of the call.
> 
> Get out in front of your screw-up, and admit it was your fault.


 It is highly unlikely that anything being done with DirecTV-14 at 99 would have any effect on satellites at 103. It may well be a screw-up at DirecTV, or it could be a satellite problem (failure of a power bus would have this effect), but the timing vis-a-vis DirecTV-14 is most likely a coincidence.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Depends on how it is handled. Both legacy and SWM have two additional slots they know how to talk to - flex1 & flex2. Since it looks almost certain RDBS will only be used on 4K receivers, they won't have to worry about implementing it on existing receivers so I guess it is all academic.


It seems like that would depend on whether a current model Genie is expected to be able to record for an 4K Ready RVU client as it does now.


----------



## KyL416

I'm having transponders lightup on 99ca!

95 on 13
95 on 15
96 on 19

I'm guessing they're doing it now to get some of the channels lost on 103cb back up and running


----------



## HoTat2

KyL416 said:


> I'm having transponders lightup on 99ca!
> 
> 95 on 13
> 95 on 15
> 96 on 19
> 
> I'm guessing they're doing it now to get the channels lost on 103cb back up and running ASAP.


Yep,

Xpndrs 13, 15 and 19 lit up so far.

Guess they've got the press D14 into service as it seems D10 has some big problems ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## tsduke

I still don't see 99ca in signal screens.


----------



## HoTat2

tsduke said:


> I still don't see 99ca in signal screens.


With few exceptions, right now it's pretty much visable only to those receivers running "other firmware" than the national release. ...

Though given the apparently serious problem with D10 (103cb), all HD receivers may be seeing it soon.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## longrider

I have receivers on the NR and 99C is showing transponders 1 through 20 with signals now on 13, 15, and 19 It looks liek the NR is just merging the two into one screen


----------



## HoTat2

longrider said:


> I have receivers on the NR and 99C is showing transponders 1 through 20 with signals now on 13, 15, and 19 It looks liek the NR is just merging the two into one screen


Although if they're doing this, it will cause a display overlap problem with D11's 1-14 CONUS beam xpndrs such as currently with xpndr 13.

But interesting none the less....

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## tonyd79

longrider said:


> I have receivers on the NR and 99C is showing transponders 1 through 20 with signals now on 13, 15, and 19 It looks liek the NR is just merging the two into one screen


With a refresh, I just saw 19 light up on 99cb.


----------



## KyL416

Transponder 11 just lit up, see the other threads for a report on which channels returned

EDIT: The channels are coming from 99ca


----------



## YUMA11

There is no signal in any transponder103'(cb)


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## peds48

YUMA11 said:


> There is no signal in any transponder103'(cb)
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/216619-signal-issues-of-late/page-3


----------



## HoTat2

YUMA11 said:


> There is no signal in any transponder103'(cb)
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Yep;

For now anyway, apparently "It's dead Jim"...

Not totally unexpected mind you. D10's precarious status has been well understood by DIRECTV for a long time now.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## lwilli201

Transponders 11,13,15,17,19,21 and 23 seem to be stable now. Should be a lot of progress later this morning.


----------



## KyL416

Yep a few more lit up in the past hour, getting high 90s on 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 21 while 23 is going back and forth between 0 and the high 90s

Once it stabilizes I'll report on what channels are up in the other thread in about an hour.


----------



## lwilli201

KyL416 said:


> Yep a few more lit up in the past hour, getting high 90s on 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 21 while 23 is going back and forth between 0 and the high 90s
> 
> Once it stabilizes I'll report on what channels are up in the other thread in about an hour.


Keep up the good work. I did notice that 103(cb) had 14 active national transponders. 99 (ca) is showing room for only 11. Any significance to that?


----------



## HoTat2

lwilli201 said:


> Keep up the good work. I did notice that 103(cb) had 14 active national transponders. 99 (ca) is showing room for only 11. Any significance to that?


D14 shouldn't be limited to only 11 CONUS xpndrs, but has up to 16.

Considering that xpndrs 21 and 23 were recently N/A before going live to bring the total (levels of 0 or otherwise) from 9 to 11 demonstrates that more can be added.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

BTW, another thing is for certain for the technically curious.

We definitely know where local spotbeam xpndrs 15-24 of 103(s) originate from now. ... 

Expensive way to learn it though. ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## tomspeer46

Does anyone have any thoughts on the fact that they only fired up odd number transponders (so far)?


----------



## lwilli201

The only thing I can think of for doing this is that the frequencies of adjoining transponders may be very close and great care must be taken for them not to interfere with each other. In the rush to get them up they may not have time to calibrate them properly hence spacing them out to avoid interference. That is totally a guess however.


----------



## slice1900

The frequencies of the odd and even Ka transponders are identical (i.e. tpn 1 = tpn 2, tpn 3 = tpn 4) with opposite polarity. The frequencies are fixed by the filters onboard the satellite, so there is no calibration to adjust spacing.


----------



## HoTat2

Hope there's nothing wrong or unsatisfactory with the LHCP antenna system for the CONUS beam xpndrs.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## texasbrit

D10 lives? 103CB TPs are back again....


----------



## lwilli201

slice1900 said:


> The frequencies of the odd and even Ka transponders are identical (i.e. tpn 1 = tpn 2, tpn 3 = tpn 4) with opposite polarity. The frequencies are fixed by the filters onboard the satellite, so there is no calibration to adjust spacing.


Great information, thanks. So is there an advantage to working with the same polarity due to the rush to bring up the programming?


----------



## tomspeer46

texasbrit said:


> D10 lives? 103CB TPs are back again....


Yep, I see them all at full strength.


----------



## slice1900

lwilli201 said:


> Great information, thanks. So is there an advantage to working with the same polarity due to the rush to bring up the programming?


I really have no idea. Could be they were caught halfway through doing some sort of test/prep and used the transponders they'd already passed, which happened to all be odd. Directv doesn't really tell anyone the list of steps they have to prepare a satellite for use, so we all just sort of sit around and wait until it starts doing something


----------



## lwilli201

I just lost all channels and got "Reset SWM" prompt. Reset got programming back. I had breakup, freezing and 771 on all channels earlier and a reset corrected some of that problem but just had a 771 popup on ESPN 206 for a few seconds. Something coming down seems to be scrambling some SWM. I have a SWM 5 and SWM 8.


----------



## slice1900

lwilli201 said:


> I just lost all channels and got "Reset SWM" prompt. Reset got programming back. I had breakup, freezing and 771 on all channels earlier and a reset corrected some of that problem but just had a 771 popup on ESPN 206 for a few seconds. Something coming down seems to be scrambling some SWM. I have a SWM 5 and SWM 8.


That is unrelated to the satellite issues, as ESPN is on 99c (D11) Your signature says you have an AT9, is that accurate? That's really old, and those symptoms could well be the onset of LNB failure. Might want to have Directv visit and upgrade you to a Slimline


----------



## Oli74

This is off topic I have been with DirecTv for over 7 years and I still have the same Slim Line Dish. 
Is it time to upgrade my Dish? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dpeters11

Oli74 said:


> This is off topic I have been with DirecTv for over 7 years and I still have the same Slim Line Dish.
> Is it time to upgrade my Dish?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No, the dish for HD hasn't changed. There may be a time to upgrade the LNB, the part that points to the dish, but that would come later.


----------



## Oli74

dpeters11 said:


> No, the dish for HD hasn't changed. There may be a time to upgrade the LNB, the part that points to the dish, but that would come later.


That was change a few years back when most of my channels went blank and couldn't get my Spanish Channels

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy

Oli74 said:


> This is off topic I have been with DirecTv for over 7 years and I still have the same Slim Line Dish.
> Is it time to upgrade my Dish?


It's more about the DVRs and receivers: What do you have now? How many Tvs/viewers?


----------



## Oli74

Laxguy said:


> It's more about the DVRs and receivers: What do you have now? How many Tvs/viewers?


I have 2 HD boxes which one is a HD DVR one SD box

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

Oli74 said:


> I have *2 HD* boxes which *one is a HD DVR* one SD box
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


the post is dragging off-topic ...would you take the personal matter to PM ? or will continue derail the thread ?


----------



## Oli74

P Smith said:


> the post is dragging off-topic ...would you take the personal matter to PM ? or will continue derail the thread ?


I know its off topic was just asking a question

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

Oli74 said:


> I know its off topic was just asking a question
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nah, ....

As to your original question you're not going reqiure a new dish or LNBF beyond the current Slimline you have now as far as reception from the present Ka and Ku bands are concerned.

However, when the new RDBS band becomes active for whatever DIRECTV plans for it such as UHD, that is going to require new LNBFs and propably multiswitches as well for those that want rhe service.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## dpeters11

But I do wonder if there will be a version that can see 119.


----------



## lwilli201

slice1900 said:


> That is unrelated to the satellite issues, as ESPN is on 99c (D11) Your signature says you have an AT9, is that accurate? That's really old, and those symptoms could well be the onset of LNB failure. Might want to have Directv visit and upgrade you to a Slimline


My AT9 is just fine. I actually have a newer dish in a box in the garage but have not seen the need to go to the hassle of putting it up. I did find my problem and it is a little embarrassing. When I got the 9th tuner I added the SWM5 back to my system. I determined it was the problem. Lo and behold I found some loose connections. After getting them all nice and snug everything seems to be working fine so far. I guess I need to chalk this up to operator error.  I guess we will see.


----------



## lwilli201

This may be a dumb question, but where did the bandwidth come from to add programming to D-14. Did Directv get additional bandwidth authorized for D-14 or are they using already authorized unused bandwidth?


----------



## HoTat2

lwilli201 said:


> This may be a dumb question, but where did the bandwidth come from to add programming to D-14. Did Directv get additional bandwidth authorized for D-14 *or are they using already authorized unused bandwidth?*


The later ...

Prior to D14 the Ka-hi band at 99W was very underutilized with only a few local spotbeams from SW2, even though DIRECTV has long had the FCC authorization to use the additional spectrum that D14 currently will.


----------



## slice1900

dpeters11 said:


> But I do wonder if there will be a version that can see 119.


That will depend on what Directv's long term plans are for 119 after they discontinue MPEG2 SD. No one outside of Directv knows, assuming they've even decided. I think they'd strongly consider abandoning it if it wasn't for the fact that they might aid Dish by doing so.

One interesting suggestion someone had was to use it for west coast feeds. The look angle from the dish to the 119 satellite's location can be a problem for some customers, especially in the northeast, so it isn't desirable to place core programming on it. However, east coast customers are less likely to care about west coast feeds, and the customers in the west coast who are most likely to are also much more likely to have good line of sight to 119. Those who don't would be inconvenienced, but wouldn't lose any programming since they'd still have the east coast feeds on 99/101/103.


----------



## agh1701

In Louisville market we still don't have access t D14

Sent from my LG-VS985 using Tapatalk


----------



## mexican-bum

agh1701 said:


> In Louisville market we still don't have access t D14
> 
> Sent from my LG-VS985 using Tapatalk


Everyone in the US has access to D14, the signal meter may not show up but you will have access to it.


----------



## KyL416

agh1701 said:


> In Louisville market we still don't have access t D14


You don't need to see 99ca on the signal strength page to receive the channels on D14, that's just an information screen, the actual tuning of the channels is a seperate thing.

If you can watch any of the following channels right now you have access to D14:
70 QVCHD
145 CINEHD
204 HLNHD
230 DIYHD
232 COOKHD
238 REELZHD
264 BBCAHD
266 FYIHD
271 H2HD
274 OVTVHD
275 QVCHD
276 NGCHD
279 OWNHD
283 NGWHD
285 IDHD
286 DESTHD
304 TVLDHD
305 IONEHD
317 QVCHD
342 FUSNHD
356 mnbcHD
404 GALAHD
505 HBO2wHD
516 MAXwHD
541 EACTHD
564 IFCHD
576 PBTVHD
589 PBTVHD
611 SECHD
654 FSFLHD
677 LHNHD
694 FSSDHD


----------



## HoTat2

agh1701 said:


> In Louisville market we still don't have access t D14
> 
> Sent from my LG-VS985 using Tapatalk





mexican-bum said:


> Everyone in the US has access to D14, the signal meter may not show up but you will have access to it.


Correct,

You have access to whatever is available from D14 as do us all.

But what I think you are referring to is that you do not yet see the 99ca signal level screen in your receiver settings.

The receivers' do not need to display 99ca screen in order it to receive from it. The SS screens are really a convenience for your and DIRECTV CSRs/Tech. Support as an aid to self installation, dish realignment, LNBF and multiswitch performance, cable run quality, etc.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## agh1701

KyL416 said:


> You don't need to see 99ca on the signal strength page to receive the channels on D14, that's just an information screen, the actual tuning of the channels is a seperate thing.
> 
> If you can watch any of the following channels right now you have access to D14:
> 70 QVCHD
> 145 CINEHD
> 204 HLNHD
> 230 DIYHD
> 232 COOKHD
> 238 REELZHD
> 264 BBCAHD
> 266 FYIHD
> 271 H2HD
> 274 OVTVHD
> 275 QVCHD
> 276 NGCHD
> 279 OWNHD
> 283 NGWHD
> 285 IDHD
> 286 DESTHD
> 304 TVLDHD
> 305 IONEHD
> 317 QVCHD
> 342 FUSNHD
> 356 mnbcHD
> 404 GALAHD
> 505 HBO2wHD
> 516 MAXwHD
> 541 EACTHD
> 564 IFCHD
> 576 PBTVHD
> 589 PBTVHD
> 611 SECHD
> 654 FSFLHD
> 677 LHNHD
> 694 FSSDHD


Thanks I do. Should I see the 95xx test channels?

Sent from my LG-VS985 using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

agh1701 said:


> Thanks I do. Should I see the 95xx test channels?
> 
> Sent from my LG-VS985 using Tapatalk


No not yet;

Once all of D14's CONUS xpndrs are prep'ed out and active, then I'm sure DIRECTV will at some point create narrowband test channels on a select even and odd CONUS xpndr and place them in the 9500 ch. range as "99 A Odd" and "99 A Even."

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## damondlt

Are these all from Directv 10?


----------



## HoTat2

damondlt said:


> Are these all from Directv 10?


What "all these" are you referring to specifically?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## damondlt

KyL416 said:


> If you can watch any of the following channels right now you have access to D14:
> 70 QVCHD
> 145 CINEHD
> 204 HLNHD
> 230 DIYHD
> 232 COOKHD
> 238 REELZHD
> 264 BBCAHD
> 266 FYIHD
> 271 H2HD
> 274 OVTVHD
> 275 QVCHD
> 276 NGCHD
> 279 OWNHD
> 283 NGWHD
> 285 IDHD
> 286 DESTHD
> 304 TVLDHD
> 305 IONEHD
> 317 QVCHD
> 342 FUSNHD
> 356 mnbcHD
> 404 GALAHD
> 505 HBO2wHD
> 516 MAXwHD
> 541 EACTHD
> 564 IFCHD
> 576 PBTVHD
> 589 PBTVHD
> 611 SECHD
> 654 FSFLHD
> 677 LHNHD
> 694 FSSDHD


Sorry Hotat2, 
I meant these channels.
Are they from Directv 10.


----------



## HoTat2

damondlt said:


> Sorry Hotat2,
> I meant these channels.
> Are they from Directv 10.


No, those channels were formally on D10 before the incident and are now on D14.

For the complete and updated lists of what is now on either D14 or D10 post - incident, see Gary's TPN maps.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## damondlt

So Yes they are from Directv 10.

Lol. 

I know they aren't now, but they were previously is what I was asking.

Which is exactly what I've already stated (back in August 2014) was going to happen when Directv 14 was launched.
It was going to lighten the load on Broken Directv 10, Not expand massive HD channels and massive 4K programming. 
Directv 14 was necessary maintenance requirement.

It was also stated in 2011 3rd quarter conference call.


----------



## inkahauts

Well depends on how you look at it. It still has more capacity by a significant amount than d10 was using. So yes and no. You can say it is replacement for bandwidth too but it's physical replacement looks more to be d15 latter in the year.


----------



## damondlt

inkahauts said:


> Well depends on how you look at it. It still has more capacity by a significant amount than d10 was using. So yes and no. You can say it is replacement for bandwidth too but it's physical replacement looks more to be d15 latter in the year.


Back in 2011 it was stated Directv 10 was operating on it backup systems, which put a rush on Directv 14 and 15. 
Just saying HD had less to do with it.
It was a major maintenance requirement long before anyone knew anything about 4K.


----------



## inkahauts

Oh yeah. Totally agree. The bss is where the 4k stuff comes in.


----------



## damondlt

In any event, you're good to go now though.


----------



## lwilli201

Is there a reason that D-14 was not sent to 103 because of the D-10 problem?


----------



## damondlt

lwilli201 said:


> Is there a reason that D-14 was not sent to 103 because of the D-10 problem?


Because the D10 is still operating, no need to change original set plans.
And it doesn't matter where it's sitting.
It can perform the same functions whether it's at the 103 or 99.


----------



## LameLefty

damondlt said:


> Because the D10 is still operating, no need to change original set plans.
> And it doesn't matter where it's sitting.
> It can perform the same functions whether it's at the 103 or 99.


Although it will need FCC permission to move from one slot to another, should the need ever arise.


----------



## mexican-bum

damondlt said:


> Because the D10 is still operating, no need to change original set plans.
> And it doesn't matter where it's sitting.
> It can perform the same functions whether it's at the 103 or 99.


Also D10 is a Ka lo band satellite, D14 is a Ka hi band satellite, it wouldn't work at 103 in place of D10 as D12 is providing Ka hi band in that spot already.


----------



## damondlt

LameLefty said:


> Although it will need FCC permission to move from one slot to another, should the need ever arise.


Exactly, which is why they stayed as planned, with D14 going to the 99, and D15 going to the 103.

Again just because D10 in the 103 OBL. is limp, doesn't mean they have to send another satellite to the 103 right away, other satellites from other slots can pick up the slack.


----------



## JosephB

LameLefty said:


> Although it will need FCC permission to move from one slot to another, should the need ever arise.


Right, but it shouldn't need to move from one slot to the other. It can serve D10's channels from its own slot. It doesn't matter which side a particular channel comes from, your receiver can see them all.


----------



## inkahauts

JosephB said:


> Right, but it shouldn't need to move from one slot to the other. It can serve D10's channels from its own slot. It doesn't matter which side a particular channel comes from, your receiver can see them all.


He was simply noting that if they ever did move it it would need permission. It was just some extra info to go with the earlier reply on why they didn't put d14 where d10 is. The idea being at a future point in time for any number of reasons like d12 needing to be replaced and d15 already needing to be placed elsewhere as well.

It does make a difference where the satelites are parked technically. And by that I mean that this sat actually will be better where it is than at the other slot because it'd be duplication which equals no gain at the other slot. At its current slot it's actually adding capacity over all. Although d15 could support the same conus stuff at d14s slot it couldn't do what d14 can for locals.

It is a nice jigsaw puzzle I think.


----------



## slice1900

I think that "jigsaw puzzle" is why they designed D15 like they did, it is like a square beige piece in a puzzle with several places where a square beige piece will fit


----------



## doctor j

FCC Updates

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-332453A1.pdf
E120109
DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC requests modification of its fixed earth station in Castle Rock, CO, to add telemetry, tracking and command
(TT&C) emission designators and pointing beacons for the DIRECTV 14 satellite operating at the 99.235° W.L. orbital location in the
20190-20200 MHz (space-to-Earth) and the 28350-28360 and 29995- 30000 MHz (Earth-to-space) frequency bands.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-332454A1.pdf
E140116
On March 3, 2015, DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC was granted special temporary authority, for a period of 30 days, to conduct post-construction
performance verification testing of its fixed earth station in Moxee, WA, with the DIRECTV 14 (S2869) satellite operating at the 99.235º W.L.
orbital location in the 24.75-25.15 GHz, 28.35-28.36 GHz (Earth-to space) and the 17.30-17.70 GHz, 20.19-20.20 GHz (space-to-Earth)
frequency bands.

The second is interesting because This Earth station has not yet receiver its license. E140115 and E140117 have

Doctor j


----------



## HoTat2

doctor j said:


> FCC Updates ...
> 
> E140116
> 
> On March 3, 2015, DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC was granted special temporary authority, for a period of 30 days, to conduct post-construction
> performance verification testing of its fixed earth station in Moxee, WA, with the DIRECTV 14 (S2869) satellite operating at the 99.235º W.L.
> orbital location in the 24.75-25.15 GHz, 28.35-28.36 GHz (Earth-to space) and the 17.30-17.70 GHz, 20.19-20.20 GHz (space-to-Earth)
> frequency bands.
> 
> The second is interesting because This Earth station has not yet receiver its license. E140115 and E140117 have
> 
> Doctor j


Yeah, I noticed the application for this new one awhile back near the end of last year.

Interesting, antenna ID is called "NWKAR-5" for what I assume stands for "Northwest" "Ka band" "Reverse Band" antenna number "5."

Its a 13.2m dish mfd. by General Dynamics to be used for the dual purposes of uplinking programs to the RDBS payload on D14, RB-1. And used to provide TT&C services for D14 as well.


----------



## esbenson

I'm having issues receiving all of the channels from D14. It is raining here, but no issues from D11. It is happening on all my receivers. I only have a 99c in the signal strength section.

1-8 53 72 59 73 53 69 54 72
9-16 55 68 49 70 46 66 0 0
17-24 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A
25-32 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Is 14 signal strength just lower than 11? Is something going on nationally? Anything with my equipment?

Thanks,

Eric


----------



## WestDC

Can you receive SD Channels - In setting Change to Display all channels May help during rain


----------



## bobnielsen

They look normal here.


----------



## esbenson

Yes - SD is all fine. It's only the D14 channels out which seems strange.


----------



## HoTat2

Sunny and hot here in So. Cal.

Getting all D14's current signals at good levels.

11 transponders authorized, 11-23 (excluding 12 and 22 which are N/A) with signal levels on 6 odd number tpns. 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 21


----------



## HoTat2

esbenson said:


> Yes - SD is all fine. It's only the D14 channels out which seems strange.


Just curious, how's your 103ca look?


----------



## esbenson

103ca:

1-8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
9-16 84 73 85 76 82 73 82 74
17-24 82 73 84 74 80 74 83 74
25-32 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A


----------



## WestDC

Lose numbers look lower than mine when the leaves are out fully - perhaps with the rain your dish may need to be re-peaked if you have not had that done in sometime recent?


----------



## esbenson

It is an MDU dish so I have no idea when they would have last done anything - they told me when I got set up here that some of the numbers are lower due to the distance from the dish to the apartment.


----------



## inkahauts

Those numbers work fine in California. This is very odd. I'd suspect a bad connector somewhere or a bad cable. Do you have more than one outlet in the home? Maybe try a different spot if you can?


----------



## WestDC

esbenson said:


> It is an MDU dish so I have no idea when they would have last done anything - they told me when I got set up here that some of the numbers are lower due to the distance from the dish to the apartment.


Are you okay when the weather is clear? if so that would make it weather related - if NOT since your on a MDU contact them about your trouble -they will be your first point of contact


----------



## esbenson

Yes - everything was fine yesterday with these channels (or at least the ones I watched). So hopefully this is just the rain fade and will come back when this ends. If I have to go through the MDU, I'll be lucky to get someone to come out before mid-week. They are terrible with their customer service.


----------



## harsh

esbenson said:


> 1-8 53 72 59 73 53 69 54 72
> 9-16 55 68 49 70 46 66 0 0
> 17-24 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A
> 25-32 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A


Someone once told me that every other TP being low was a sign of a bad aim.


----------



## texasbrit

Yes, it's caused by bad alignment. We noticed this way back when the first 99/103 dishes were installed. Could never quite work out if the discrepancy indicated bad azimuth or elevation or even skew.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> Someone once told me that every other TP being low was a sign of a bad aim.


Though it would be hard to tell in D14's case at present of an alignment problem if the resulting pattern would be evens high and the odds low since only odd number transponders are lit up with signal levels on D14 right now.


----------



## tomspeer46

Gary Tomas' TPN maps posted today show that D-14 is no longer carrying any programming. All of the channels it had picked up have been moved back to D-10. Now DirecTV can get back to their original testing and implementation plan, whatever that is.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> Though it would be hard to tell in D14's case at present of an alignment problem if the resulting pattern would be evens high and the odds low since only odd number transponders are lit up with signal levels on D14 right now.


Are there any DIRECTV 14 CONUS transponders hot now that the load shifted back?


----------



## gpg

All the odds except 23 are still hot.


----------



## HoTat2

gpg said:


> All the odds except 23 are still hot.


All transmitting essentially null packets I guess ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary Toma

Have you considered -- perhaps D14 has some problems ....


----------



## studechip

Wouldn't that have to have been reported by now?


----------



## HoTat2

studechip said:


> Wouldn't that have to have been reported by now?


Its always been fuzzy to me what, when and to who DIRECTV is reponsible to report whatever a specific problem(s) there may be with a satellite.

But I agree with Gary that with the strange way DIRECTV has been handling D14 since it's arrival at the operarional slot. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if something was wrong with D14.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Isn't there 2 new HD channels coming from D14?


----------



## KyL416

Those channels were originally going to be on D10, it was lost in the shuffle the day D10 went down, but the 3 new HD channels replaced HD Cinema channels that were on channels 133-135.


----------



## HoTat2

TheRatPatrol said:


> Isn't there 2 new HD channels coming from D14?


Yes...

Two of the newest entries BBC World News HD (ch. 346) on its xpndr 19 and Sundance HD (ch. 557) on it's xpndr 15 along with some 33 other HD channels.

Now they're all gone, having been moved to D10 (103cb).

D14 is inexplicably blank now ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## lwilli201

WOW, let the conspiracy theories begin. D-14 is probably back on track with the original plan to bring into service. Even without the problems on D-10 there would probably be little or no programing on D-14. I think the biggest question is how did D-10 totally crash and miraculously return to its previous status.


----------



## studechip

lwilli201 said:


> WOW, let the conspiracy theories begin. D-14 is probably back on track with the original plan to bring into service. Even without the problems on D-10 there would probably be little or no programing on D-14. I think the biggest question is how did D-10 totally crash and miraculously return to its previous status.


RBR


----------



## lwilli201

studechip said:


> RBR


Now why didn't I think of that. :grin:


----------



## P Smith

lwilli201 said:


> WOW, let the conspiracy theories begin. D-14 is probably back on track with the original plan to bring into service. Even without the problems on D-10 there would probably be little or no programing on D-14. *I think the biggest question is how did D-10 totally crash and miraculously return to its previous status.*


Perhaps it's belong to other thread as about D-10 ?


----------



## inkahauts

studechip said:


> RBR


As crazy as that sounds I wonder if you are right to a certain extent.

As for d14 I personally highly doubt there's any issues at all. I think they have plans and are sticking with them. Remember they have never mentioned d14 start date for regular useage or anything else. I think they are still playing with fine tuning things and maybe even bss.


----------



## P Smith

I would say the sat is not a toy, it cost orbital amount plus each day on orbit and ground stations and personnel expenses. It must be very serious reasons not to begin commercial use of the sat!


----------



## James Long

Generally speaking, companies like to test their satellites before putting them to use. The glitch of D-10 pressed D-14 into service earlier than planned. Now that the problem with D-10 is apparently cleared up DirecTV can get back to the schedule.


----------



## Ed Campbell

lwilli201 said:


> Now why didn't I think of that. :grin:


Har. Our RBR isn't included in any quick search online for acronyms. I added it to one of the DBs.


----------



## studechip

lwilli201 said:


> Now why didn't I think of that. :grin:


It would take someone with a really long reach!


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> It must be very serious reasons not to begin commercial use of the sat!


Absent UHD, I think one of the more important applications of DIRECTV 14 was to be improved/up-to-date spot beam coverage. The eastern extremes of Oregon are anxiously waiting for their HD LIL to come from DIRECTV 14.


----------



## P Smith

I wouldn't side with you on that. Too restrictive, it's not real limitation as the sat is much more versatile then just dedicated to UHD only.

Adding to that, the sat business cannot afford idling whole sat beyond predefined tight schedule of tests. Cost of it is counting by millions $.
If testings period exceeded then there must be very serious reason to prolong tests, perhaps do some "amelioration", etc.

Such frivolous description of "toying" totally unacceptable. I'm bet big money, engineers does working 24/7 in three shifts with the sat, doing tests or other tasks if something require go out of prescribed routines and schedule.


----------



## inkahauts

Why on earth would they have three shifts running tests and spend all that money for that labor when there's so few they probably have just for setting up the sat and testing when there's is absolutely zero rush to get it running. And it's not going to cost them any more or less if they fire it up now or in six months to be honest. In fact it's probably cost more for faster. 

Id imagine they just spent a boat load trying to get d10 back up.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> I wouldn't side with you on that. Too restrictive, it's not real limitation as the sat is much more versatile then just dedicated to UHD only.
> 
> Adding to that, the sat business cannot afford idling whole sat beyond predefined tight schedule of tests. Cost of it is counting by millions $.
> If testings period exceeded then there must be very serious reason to prolong tests, perhaps do some "amelioration", etc.
> 
> Such frivolous description of "toying" totally unacceptable. I'm bet big money, engineers does working 24/7 in three shifts with the sat, doing tests or other tasks if something require go out of prescribed routines and schedule.


I have to say with each passing week that goes by without anything substantial from D14 other than the temporary emergency transfer of channels from D10 which has now been completely reversed. I'm inclined to agree something is wrong with D14.

There's just too much apparent testing going on.

Those some 4 weeks of testing at 76W, and now we're coming up on two months more testing since it's arrival at 99W back in late January?

The official letter to the FCC from DIRECTV's legal reps. stated that D14 began commercial operations on Jan. 26.

Even during the major glitch with D10, D14 only partially came on to subscribers, but in a weird way with only 11 CONUS transponders authorized, and out of those only 7 odd ones actually lit up to carry programming.


----------



## RAD

Didn't DIRECTV originally say it wouldn't be until 2nd quarter when they expected to have D14 operational???


----------



## Oli74

RAD said:


> Didn't DIRECTV originally say it wouldn't be until 2nd quarter when they expected to have D14 operational???


We are in the 2nd quarter so maybe before end of April or May

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RAD

Oli74 said:


> We are in the 2nd quarter so maybe before end of April or May
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sorry but March is in the 1st quarter, April/May/June are the 2nd quarter.


----------



## HoTat2

Oli74 said:


> We are in the 2nd quarter so maybe before end of April or May
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Unless we're talking about fiscal years which usually begin Oct. 1st of the previous year, the 2nd quarter of a year should begin April 1st shouldn't it?

(And that ain't no foolin'  )

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

RAD said:


> Sorry but March is in the 1st quarter, April/May/June are the 2nd quarter.


Yeah ...

I think Oli is referring to the second quarter of a fiscal year ....

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## tomspeer46

Each company can define its fiscal year as it chooses. A quick check of financial information websites show that the DirecTV fiscal year ends December 31, so its quarters coincide with calendar quarters.


----------



## slice1900

I wonder if the 'second quarter' thing doesn't have something to do with D15's launch in May? Perhaps they plan to wait for a successful launch of D15 before making D14 operational? Problems with D15's launch might kick in a plan B for how they utilize D14, as that would leave D10 without a backup.


----------



## harsh

HoTat2 said:


> There's just too much apparent testing going on.


What kind of "apparent testing" do you see? Absence of residential channels doesn't mean that they must surely be deeply involved in rigorous testing.

I'm thinking more along inkahauts' "no rush" scenario (outside of the aforementioned HD LIL improvements). In saying that, I'm pretty sure DIRECTV 14 was NOT ready to go when it was pressed into service regardless of what they told the FCC.


----------



## Sixto

I'm thinking nothing's wrong. They did say 2nd quarter. At the time I thought that they were just being ultra conservative, but there may have been a real schedule in mind.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Directv will either get D14 up and running or it will not. Why worry as Al would say.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Problems with D15's launch might kick in a plan B for how they utilize D14, as that would leave D10 without a backup.


Launch problems are relatively rare with the Ariane 5.


----------



## harsh

yosoyellobo said:


> Directv will either get D14 up and running or it will not. Why worry as Al would say.


There's also the middle ground where DIRECTV 10 resides where it only partially works (no spot beams?).

The aging Spaceway 1 apparently taking up the DIRECTV 10 spot beam responsibility needs to be addressed well before the end of the decade.


----------



## HoTat2

yosoyellobo said:


> Directv will either get D14 up and running or it will not. Why worry as Al would say.


Well, among other things, we would talking about the loss of the additional capacity of 16 Ka band CONUS beam transponders and their spotbeam mirrors to Hawaii and Puerto Rico. DIRECTV can do all sorts of things with that. A spotbeam payload capable of serving up to 69 DMAs plus Puerto Rico. The planned use of the RDBS band for UHD and/or whatever else would be dealt a severe blow with the loss of half its planned capacity in RB-1. The Ka-hi band at 99W still left way underutilized for the years more, ect.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## alnielsen

Sixto said:


> I'm thinking nothing's wrong. They did say 2nd quarter. At the time I thought that they were just being ultra conservative, but there may have been a real schedule in mind.


I would think it would be operational before D15 is launched. Would you want 2 sats in testing at the same time?


----------



## YUMA11

Directv SAID December 6

When the satellite begins operations in early second quarter of next year, it will be the first commercial satellite to use the Reverse Band Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) spectrum, providing additional capacity for the delivery of more 4K Ultra HD programming and other advanced services to DIRECTV customers across America including Alaska and Hawaii and Puerto Rico


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## P Smith

inkahauts said:


> Why on earth would they have three shifts running tests and spend all that money for that labor when there's so few they probably have just for setting up the sat and testing when there's is absolutely zero rush to get it running. And it's not going to cost them any more or less if they fire it up now or in six months to be honest. In fact it's probably cost more for faster.
> 
> Id imagine they just spent a boat load trying to get d10 back up.


I wouldn't hire you as accountant nor a person who are responsible for business decisions or executing plans specifically.
Your frivolous look to such business have no ground. And doesn't procure current expenses for the D-14. I would say last time for you - each day of existence the sat in a orbit does cost millions. IF YOU DON'T GET - I'M SORRY FOR YOU.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> There's also the middle ground where DIRECTV 10 resides where it only partially works (no spot beams?).
> 
> The aging Spaceway 1 apparently taking up the DIRECTV 10 spot beam responsibility needs to be addressed well before the end of the decade.


D12 provides the spot beams that D10 doesn't - they both have Ka lo spot beams. The Spaceways are Ka hi. Makes me wonder if the plan was originally that like D14, D12 would have Ka hi spot beams but they switched to Ka lo due to D10's spot beam issues.

I wouldn't worry about the life of the Spaceways. Directv recently filed for a license extension for D8 (one of their Ku satellites at 101 launched in 2005, same year as the Spaceways) through 2025. In the filing they estimated it had fuel life left through 2034! Directv's only active satellite with a fuel life expiring prior to 2020 is D4S, their first spot beam satellite, which they could retire at any time without impacting operations. Since the graph they used to show fuel life was just an arrow past 2020 there's no way to know how far beyond 2020 the Spaceways' fuel life extends, but they don't need to worry about them "well before the end of the decade".


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> I wouldn't hire you as accountant nor a person who are responsible for business decisions or executing plans specifically.
> Your frivolous look to such business have no ground. And doesn't procure current expenses for the D-14. I would say last time for you - each day of existence the sat in a orbit does cost millions. IF YOU DON'T GET - I'M SORRY FOR YOU.


Where do you get the crazy idea that satellites cost millions PER DAY? If they cost $2 million per day and had a 15 year design life like D14, that implies a build/launch capital cost of around $11 billion, not even including ongoing operational costs! No one could make money in satellite TV if having a 10 satellite fleet like Directv implied a capital cost of $110 billion. I think you need to check your decimal places, and Directv's yearly capital spending breakdowns.


----------



## inkahauts

P Smith said:


> I wouldn't hire you as accountant nor a person who are responsible for business decisions or executing plans specifically.
> Your frivolous look to such business have no ground. And doesn't procure current expenses for the D-14. I would say last time for you - each day of existence the sat in a orbit does cost millions. IF YOU DON'T GET - I'M SORRY FOR YOU.


Uh, no. Pretty sure they make these satelites as big as they do and to last as long as they can to cut the costs down every day to as little as possible. And in the grand scheme of things I'd love to see if six months is almost completely negligible in terms of the costs to operate it over the course of its entire lifespan.

Not to mention, once again, how do you know they aren't using it for something right now that we just don't know about?

Besides, how could it be costing them anything more when it's in use vs not in use? That doesn't really compute at all. The money they have spent for this sat is spread over many years. The actual costs of the satellite doesn't change because it's turned on or off. The change in costs for on and off is more to do with the people and man hours it takes to run it form the ground at this point. It's not like they have to pay for more gas at a gas station to last longer.

And when you have an entire fleet like DIRECTV how much more can a sat costs to operate on the ground if it's simply one more sat? Other than initial testing I would imagine the costs of controlling 10 vs 11 satelites is minimal.. But not sure. Maybe someone who has experience with these things can tell us that...


----------



## hdtvfan0001

slice1900 said:


> I wouldn't worry about the life of the Spaceways. Directv recently filed for a license extension for D8 (one of their Ku satellites at 101 launched in 2005, same year as the Spaceways) through 2025. In the filing they estimated it had fuel life left through 2034!


Indeed.

Dish people tend to think the sky is falling most of the time based on their own experience with their inferior infrastructure and previous sat problems. It's worth it to ignore those constant naysayers.


----------



## Sixto

The two main factors are scheduling and fiscal quarterly costs.

If the original D14 post-launch schedule targeted a Q2 start for new channels/services, then that's the schedule they're back on. After the D10 hiccup, it's possibly now slightly delayed. Q2 was the date publicly mentioned after launch.

If the original plan was sooner, then something has caused the delay, exclusive of the D10 possible cause.

We've learned from the D1x satellite deployments, they're very careful with scheduling, and the quarterly spread of costs is also very important, we especially saw that with the encoder upgrades (that were spread).

It's not productive to debate whether they're "taking their time" or "there's no rush". There's always a rush to exploit an expensive asset, but there's also the balance of "testing" and the quarterly costs to manage. There's both a testing schedule and a spending schedule.

The only open question is whether the schedule actually changed, and if so, then why.

It's very possible that it was always Q2, because of the newness of reverse-band, 4K, and possibly other items.


----------



## HoTat2

Ok;

I'm sold on the second quarter explanations as a probable cause of D14's apparent inactivity up to this point and retract my former concerns for now that I posted awhile back about the satellite's health.

Though I would feel better if I could at least see some signs of various channel testing or some other going on under the hybrid tab of the TPN maps for D14 instead of just an eerie complete absence of any activity now ... 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## lwilli201

Since D-14 is programed to go on line in 2nd quarter, I would think that contracts for new programing would also be scheduled for 2nd quarter. Could be Directv just does not have anything to put on it yet.


----------



## inkahauts

Heck the contracts they have may say anytime after such and such date and begin paying immediately upon launch. 

There may also be a big marketing push being prepared if they do turn on a lot of new channels at once. However with d10 being iffy I don't think that's coming till d15 now....


----------



## lwilli201

I do not think Directv budgeted for new channels in the 1st quarter for D-14 when the satellite is scheduled to be on line during the 2nd quarter. I also would think that final negotiations for carriage would not be undertaken until they were positive they had a bird to put it on. They did add some HD channels that probably were never scheduled for D-14 and for contractual reasons they had to get them up and running. Is there a list of programming that will definitely be on D-14 in 2nd Quarter?


----------



## KyL416

lwilli201 said:


> They did add some HD channels that probably were never scheduled for D-14 and for contractual reasons they had to get them up and running.


The channels that were added replaced the HD cinema channels on channels 133-135 and were initially in test mode on D10 before they shifted to D14 along with a bunch of other channels the day it went down.



> Is there a list of programming that will definitely be on D-14 in 2nd Quarter?


None available publically. There probably is some internal list of channels they have deals with on tap, although it doesn't mean it will be on D14 itself, they could easily do another rebalancing once D14 is in service and move some channels around to different satellites.


----------



## slice1900

I'm more skeptical of a lot of new HD channels coming this spring than I was before, due the recent issue with D10. We don't really know what happened, but we know it was already on backup propulsion, and had problems with its spot beams from day one - bad enough that D12 had already taken over for it entirely.

There are two possibilities for what happen to D10. One, a system had a hard failure and they had to go to a backup. That would mean it is in a more fragile state as there's another system running without backup (or one less backup?) Two, something had a temporary failure, but they were able to get it working again without going to a backup system. That's also concerning as it is possible it may recur.

Directv may feel it is prudent to wait for a successful launch of D15 and completion of IOT before going ahead with any major plans for channel additions. That may in fact have been their plan all along, and we were just assuming that D14's added capacity was going to be the trigger, when it might be D14's added capacity AND the backup provided by D15 that they've been waiting on all along.


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> Where do you get the crazy idea that satellites cost millions PER DAY? If they cost $2 million per day and had a 15 year design life like D14, that implies a build/launch capital cost of around $11 billion, not even including ongoing operational costs! No one could make money in satellite TV if having a 10 satellite fleet like Directv implied a capital cost of $110 billion. I think you need to check your decimal places, and Directv's yearly capital spending breakdowns.


He is probably including opportunity cost, which for a commercial satellite is certainly a factor. For example, if Intelsat has a satellite sitting idle that could be loaded with paying customers' content, then the opportunity cost, combined with operational costs, could add up to a million or more per day. However, DirecTV gains no immediate revenue boost when they put D14 into service, the way Intelsat might. In fact, the only significant revenue that D14 could generate is through UHD and/or PPV premiums. So, since the opportunity cost is so small, the only real cost to DirecTV is the amortization of the capital cost (a few hundred million spread across at least 15 years) and operational costs, which shouldn't run more than 10's of thousands of dollars per day.


----------



## HoTat2

Say wasn't there a discussion some time last year about all remaining SD locals on 119 without HD versions were to be migrated to MPEG-4 versions on Ka 99 and 103?

This was to possibly be the beginning of an eventual phase out of 119?

And it was suggested at the time that this movement was likely to be to 99 where the future D14's spotbeam payload capacity would be used?

In fact in one thread dealing with an issue of double guide listings for some subs of certain 119 SD only channels was thought to be due to someone at DIRECTV perhaps throwing a switch too early and the receiver firmware is unable to guide filter out duplicate SD channels (in this case one MPEG-2, one MPEG-4).

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Oli74

Quick question how many satellites does it take to broadcast all the DTV channels? Because all I read is about D10 and D14 and what possibly D15 can carry in the future 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Say wasn't there a discussion some time last year about all remaining SD locals on 119 without HD versions were to be migrated to MPEG-4 versions on Ka 99 and 103?
> 
> This was to possibly be the beginning of an eventual phase out of 119?
> 
> And it was suggested at the time that this movement was likely to be to 99 where the future D14's spotbeam payload capacity would be used?
> 
> In fact in one thread dealing with an issue of double guide listings for some subs of certain 119 SD only channels was thought to be due to someone at DIRECTV perhaps throwing a switch too early and the receiver firmware is unable to guide filter out duplicate SD channels (in this case one MPEG-2, one MPEG-4).


I'm not sure if Directv has ever made any statements to suggest this was definitely the plan, but it obviously makes a lot of sense to be able to stop installing SL5 dishes in those markets.

Whether Directv eventually phases out 119 entirely is another matter. They probably would like to, if they could guarantee Dish would not be able to use them. If they can't guarantee that, they'll probably have to find some use for them. The more narrowly targeted the better.


----------



## WB4CS

Oli74 said:


> Quick question how many satellites does it take to broadcast all the DTV channels? Because all I read is about D10 and D14 and what possibly D15 can carry in the future
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The answer you seek is here: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/200951-transponder-maps-domestic-dla-data-refresh-3182015/

Look at the domestic spreadsheet, that will show you where each channel is coming from.


----------



## HoTat2

Oli74 said:


> Quick question how many satellites does it take to broadcast all the DTV channels? Because all I read is about D10 and D14 and what possibly D15 can carry in the future
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'd say that is a very complex question which really cannot be answered precisely because not all satellites have the same transponder numbers and configuration. And the amount of channel loading per transponder are variable. There are typical figures such as 5 max. HD channels per Ka CONUS and 14 max. for the Ku SD transponders. But DIRECTV is under no obligation to always remain with these figures and can and has exceeded them on occasion. Particularly so for HD channels on some Ka local spotbeams, where I think around 9 on a tp. are used in some markets.

And the reason D14, 15, and 10 are the focus of so much current discussion is simply because D14 is the newest bird to join the fleet soon to be followed by D15 and the new RDBS band payloads they have and what programming they will ultimately carry. And for D10, the discussion is over the question of whether it's recent major glitch and spotty overall history mean D15 is destined to be a replacement for it's important 14 CONUS beam transponders at 103W (or 103cb).


----------



## lwilli201

Directv appears to be in a position that they now have the capacity to greatly increase HD programing with addition of D-14 but they can not do that without an increase in package pricing. They could be between a rock and a hard place in this regard. They could add HD only new content to the HD only package and raise the price on that. At least subs would have a choice to add or not and not be forced to pay higher regular tier prices. It will be interesting how they approach pricing of a significant increase in HD programming. Then there is 4K and how that will be priced.


----------



## KyL416

They already added several channels to existing base packages in the past few months that are only carried in HD:
Fusion HD -> in Choice and higher
BBC World News HD -> in Xtra and higher
Longhorn HD -> in Choice and higher for Texas, Sports Pack and Premier for everyone else
ESPN Buzzer Beater HD -> in Sports Pack and Premier

AMC and WE were added to Entertainment and Select, Sundance was added to Xtra

Also, it doesn't have to be new HD only channels, there's also HD feeds for existing channels they'll probably add


----------



## slice1900

lwilli201 said:


> Directv appears to be in a position that they now have the capacity to greatly increase HD programing with addition of D-14 but they can not do that without an increase in package pricing. They could be between a rock and a hard place in this regard. They could add HD only new content to the HD only package and raise the price on that. At least subs would have a choice to add or not and not be forced to pay higher regular tier prices. It will be interesting how they approach pricing of a significant increase in HD programming. Then there is 4K and how that will be priced.


I'm not sure networks charge differently for HD, or if they do that the charge is significant. They'd probably prefer their channels are distributed in HD so there is greater viewer interest, so charging more for HD would be counterproductive. I see no reason why Directv will have to increase package pricing.

If it costs a bit them more to deliver, maybe that's part of the reason there was a larger than usual yearly increase last month, planning ahead for the additional HD channels they will add over the subsequent 12 months.


----------



## lwilli201

KyL416 said:


> They already added several channels to existing base packages in the past few months that are only carried in HD:
> Fusion HD -> in Choice and higher
> BBC World News HD -> in Xtra and higher
> Longhorn HD -> in Choice and higher for Texas, Sports Pack and Premier for everyone else
> ESPN Buzzer Beater HD -> in Sports Pack and Premier
> 
> AMC and WE were added to Entertainment and Select, Sundance was added to Xtra
> 
> Also, it doesn't have to be new HD only channels, there's also HD feeds for existing channels they'll probably add


All of those I am sure were already budgeted for placement on D-10 and cost covered by the recent package increases. IMHO the cost of putting nation wide programming on D-14 is not covered in the current price structure. 4K will have its own price structure TBD.


----------



## Deels1

P Smith said:


> I wouldn't hire you as accountant nor a person who are responsible for business decisions or executing plans specifically.
> Your frivolous look to such business have no ground. And doesn't procure current expenses for the D-14. I would say last time for you - each day of existence the sat in a orbit does cost millions. IF YOU DON'T GET - I'M SORRY FOR YOU.


In your world, how do the $20,000 Big Mac's taste?

As mentioned, in the real world "current expenses" and "opportunity cost" are different terms and the later isn't mentioned by you, nor should it be implied. Opportunity cost as a loss to DTV won't be a factor to consider until day one of quarter three and it's still going to be insignificant when compared to your cost scaling.


----------



## inkahauts

lwilli201 said:


> All of those I am sure were already budgeted for placement on D-10 and cost covered by the recent package increases. IMHO the cost of putting nation wide programming on D-14 is not covered in the current price structure. 4K will have its own price structure TBD.


I don't believe costs have anything to do with if they will launch channels on d14 at this point, I believe that was all decided ages ago and there's no price increase coming soon to account for it, they have already done what they needed to in that area.

4k will be interesting to see if they add a 4k fee or simply are able to add new unique 4k channels as their own package and make the few that have a Hi Definition version "free". Also get more money for the hardware upfront instead maybe. Don't know but it will be interesting.


----------



## harsh

lwilli201 said:


> Directv appears to be in a position that they now have the capacity to greatly increase HD programing with addition of D-14 but they can not do that without an increase in package pricing.


There's still a school of thought that believes that carrying the HD version doesn't require any more carriage money than just the SD version. The carriers know that the better they look, the better their chances of winning out in the battle for viewership.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> There's still a school of thought that believes that carrying the HD version doesn't require any more carriage money than just the SD version. The carriers know that the better they look, the better their chances of winning out in the battle for viewership.


But the content providers, at a minimum, require that the HD version be licensed separately (there is often a security key involved). That means that HD carriage becomes a bargaining chip during contract renegotiations. So while they may not charge separately they do get the chance to raise the rate across the board.


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> There's still a school of thought that believes that carrying the HD version doesn't require any more carriage money than just the SD version. The carriers know that the better they look, the better their chances of winning out in the battle for viewership.


And there is still a school of thought that believes that they know what is in the contracts that Directv has with their programming suppliers.


----------



## Sixto

Diana C said:


> But the content providers, at a minimum, require that the HD version be licensed separately (there is often a security key involved). That means that HD carriage becomes a bargaining chip during contract renegotiations. So while they may not charge separately they do get the chance to raise the rate across the board.


Yep, we learned that with D10, D11, and D12. It's not always an automatic, the content providers can use it as leverage.


----------



## inkahauts

I have a feeling at this point all contracts DIRECTV has been signing state they can use the Hi Definition feed. If they do or not being left to dtv. I more wonder if they have some that give them just the Hi Definition feed and they down convert it themselves for the sd version even if they only have an sd version.


----------



## HoTat2

Also keep in mind that at least one of the reasons D14 could have been vacated once DIRECTV was satisfied D10 was stable may be as I suggested in this thread ...

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/216991-eiv-on-the-aim-meter/?p=3348252


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> I more wonder if they have some that give them just the Hi Definition feed and they down convert it themselves for the sd version even if they only have an sd version.


I'm pretty sure that DIRECTV is doing their own down-convert on MAV TV.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> I have a feeling at this point all contracts DIRECTV has been signing state they can use the Hi Definition feed. If they do or not being left to dtv. I more wonder if they have some that give them just the Hi Definition feed and they down convert it themselves for the sd version even if they only have an sd version.


We know that is the case for some channels that provide only an HD feed, I'm sure Kyl416 could provide us a list of them 

I agree that Directv has probably put this in contracts in advance already. They've known the rough timeline of when D14/D15 would be launched several years ago and that bringing Ka hi from 99 into action would give them enough bandwidth to carry every national channel they offer in HD if it is available in HD. I would be surprised if they let it wait until the last minute for such negotiations, unless there was some financial reason why waiting would be smart in an isolated case or two.


----------



## KyL416

slice1900 said:


> We know that is the case for some channels that provide only an HD feed, I'm sure Kyl416 could provide us a list of them


Off the top of my head, ESPN, Fox's entertainment and sports channels, the Comcast SportsNets, TWC Sportsnet, NESN, Altitude, Root Sports, Universal Sports, Disney Junior, NASA TV, Univision (including El Rey and Fusion), all switched to HD only distribution. They distribute special transcoding receivers to the various cable and satellite providers that output both SD and HD feeds for their headends, however you still need a carriage deal to offer the HD feed.


----------



## studechip

KyL416 said:


> Off the top of my head, ESPN, Fox's entertainment and sports channels, the Comcast SportsNets, TWC Sportsnet, NESN, Altitude, Root Sports, Universal Sports, Disney Junior, NASA TV, Univision (including El Rey and Fusion), all switched to HD only distribution. They distribute special transcoding receivers to the various cable and satellite providers that output both SD and HD feeds for their headends, *however you still need a carriage deal to offer the HD feed.*


Do you have some insider knowledge as to how the contracts read?


----------



## cypherx

What ever happened to sat racer or whoever it was that did have this kind of knowledge?


----------



## James Long

studechip said:


> however you still need a carriage deal to offer the HD feed.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have some insider knowledge as to how the contracts read?
Click to expand...

Would you accept public knowledge? In 2008 DISH had a contract to carry the SD versions of several ABC/Disney/ESPN feeds and decided to add the HD feeds of four channels. ABC/Disney/ESPN sued saying DISH did not have permission for the HD and won. The channels were pulled by ABC/Disney/ESPN in 2010 after the win in court. Permission to carry the HD feeds was not granted by ABC/Disney/ESPN until 2014. Carriage of SD did not include permission to carry HD.

(Try not to brush that off as "six years ago" as the permission was not granted until a contract renewal last year.)


----------



## slice1900

Disney seems to act in a way that other providers do not in negotiation, i.e. their strange decision to only allow 'new' services as part of an overall contract renegotiation. The result was Dish was the last to add all their HD, Directv was the last to add WatchESPN.

Hopefully they had the forethought to address 4K in their new contracts, otherwise neither Dish nor Directv will get any 4K channels they offer until about 2020! :sure:


----------



## studechip

James Long said:


> Would you accept public knowledge? In 2008 DISH had a contract to carry the SD versions of several ABC/Disney/ESPN feeds and decided to add the HD feeds of four channels. ABC/Disney/ESPN sued saying DISH did not have permission for the HD and won. The channels were pulled by ABC/Disney/ESPN in 2010 after the win in court. Permission to carry the HD feeds was not granted by ABC/Disney/ESPN until 2014. Carriage of SD did not include permission to carry HD.
> 
> (Try not to brush that off as "six years ago" as the permission was not granted until a contract renewal last year.)


It may well be that every contract is written with hd and sd permissions separate, or maybe only some are that way. My point is that no one here, no one that can say publicly anyway, knows for certain what is in these contracts, even though they post as if they do.


----------



## Diana C

Obviously, I have no inside knowledge of what DirecTV's contracts say, but ESPN and Comcast are both clients of mine, and I have a close friend that works in the business side of TWC. It has always been communicated to me that every single feed of every single channel must be spelled out in a carriage agreement. As James points out above, we have seen examples of this play out in the past.

I seriously doubt that anyone has any UHD language in any of their contracts. The content providers would be crazy to license this content before they know what it is worth to the distributor. UHD content will be just like HD content was 10 or 15 years ago...once there is a clear demand it will be a bargaining chip used to extract higher license fees across the board.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

cypherx said:


> What ever happened to sat racer or whoever it was that did have this kind of knowledge?


There are a number of reasons satelliteracer no longer posts here. I know his position at DIRECTV has changed, and to be honest many people here weren't terribly nice to him.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Stuart Sweet said:


> There are a number of reasons satelliteracer no longer posts here. I know his position at DIRECTV has changed, and to be honest many people here weren't terribly nice to him.


Shoot the messinger.


----------



## inkahauts

Diana C said:


> Obviously, I have no inside knowledge of what DirecTV's contracts say, but ESPN and Comcast are both clients of mine, and I have a close friend that works in the business side of TWC. It has always been communicated to me that every single feed of every single channel must be spelled out in a carriage agreement. As James points out above, we have seen examples of this play out in the past.
> 
> I seriously doubt that anyone has any UHD language in any of their contracts. The content providers would be crazy to license this content before they know what it is worth to the distributor. UHD content will be just like HD content was 10 or 15 years ago...once there is a clear demand it will be a bargaining chip used to extract higher license fees across the board.


DIRECTV was a lunch partner for many Hi Definition stations.

I would not be surprised if a few stations have that kind of setup with DIRECTV already. And as I recall DIRECTV and ABC statement about their latest agreement said something specifically about also allowing for future offerings without an entirely new contract or something to that effect. I think they where talking about a over the top setup and 4k myself. But time will tell.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> I would not be surprised if a few stations have that kind of setup with DIRECTV already. And as I recall DIRECTV and ABC statement about their latest agreement said something specifically about also allowing for future offerings without an entirely new contract or something to that effect. I think they where talking about a over the top setup and 4k myself. But time will tell.


ESPN's policy of "no new content without an entirely new contract" needs to end ... for their sake and the sake of their partners. While it may be there to offer leverage to be able to renegotiate the old each time they come up with something new, that gample did not pay off in their carriage contracts with DISH or DirecTV. DISH held out for several years before adding the latest HD content and DirecTV held out until their regularly scheduled renewal to add WatchTV access.

I do not believe their policy is "absolute". DirecTV managed to add ESPN 3D as a launch partner and I do not believe that was at a contract renewal time. Which opens the door for an "ESPN UHD" channel whenever it is created (whether or not it is mentioned in the recently signed contract).

The bottom line is ESPN will allow what is best for ESPN. It would have done them no good to introduce ESPN 3D and have no major carriers. It will do them no good to introduce ESPN UHD without offering it to major carriers. Once there is a channel I am sure they will find someone to carry it.


----------



## Laxguy

Stuart Sweet said:


> There are a number of reasons satelliteracer no longer posts here. I know his position at DIRECTV has changed, and to be honest many people here weren't terribly nice to him.


That's close to an understatement! He was always knowledgeable and polite, short and sweet. (NPI!) Well, once or twice he may have ripped a new one on someone begging for it...

All best wishes to SR!


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> The bottom line is ESPN will allow what is best for ESPN. It would have done them no good to introduce ESPN 3D and have no major carriers. It will do them no good to introduce ESPN UHD without offering it to major carriers. Once there is a channel I am sure they will find someone to carry it.


They might allow everyone to add ESPN4K, but if they later want to add ESPN24K (hmmm, maybe adding '4K' to the end of the station name isn't the way they should do it :rotfl: ) and ESPNU4K they might require a new contract. Leaving Dish and Directv out in the cold for years.


----------



## James Long

By the time they get to ESPN 2 UHD I suspect it will be a simulcast of an existing channel. If I recall correctly ESPN HD started as a separately programmed channel and then as "HD" became normal it became a simulcast with ESPN and the rest of the channels followed suit as simulcasts. ESPN 3D started as a separately programmed channel (and died). ESPN UHD will begin as a separately programmed channel ... and when "UHD" becomes normal we will see a simulcast and (over time) the other channels follow suit.

At least, that is my prediction. With DirecTV being a launch partner for ESPN UHD.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

James Long said:


> By the time they get to ESPN 2 UHD I suspect it will be a simulcast of an existing channel. If I recall correctly ESPN HD started as a separately programmed channel and then as "HD" became normal it became a simulcast with ESPN and the rest of the channels followed suit as simulcasts. ESPN 3D started as a separately programmed channel (and died). ESPN UHD will begin as a separately programmed channel ... and when "UHD" becomes normal we will see a simulcast and (over time) the other channels follow suit.
> 
> At least, that is my prediction. With DirecTV being a launch partner for ESPN UHD.


ESPN 3D started as part time then later went to kind of full time (non live events stuff was just repeats) ( and some systems only had as a live event channel after that)

ESPN UHD may end up being part time due to bandwidth.


----------



## slice1900

JoeTheDragon said:


> ESPN 3D started as part time then later went to kind of full time (non live events stuff was just repeats) ( and some systems only had as a live event channel after that)
> 
> ESPN UHD may end up being part time due to bandwidth.


Directv has plenty of bandwidth available for it, even if the RDBS transponders don't end up being 100% dedicated to 4K (if they use a couple tpns for mirroring 95* for example) they've got plenty. If ESPN 4K is part time it will be due to the lack of content on ESPN's end, or lack of bandwidth from providers other than Directv, not a Directv issue.


----------



## lwilli201

I would like my RSN to be full time. As of now it only exists to show Royals baseball games. That is it.


----------



## KyL416

lwilli201 said:


> I would like my RSN to be full time. As of now it only exists to show Royals baseball games.


A full time version of your RSN doesn't exist, it's just a subregion of FS Midwest. What you see on cable is created on the fly by Fox remotely switching the receiver at your cable provider's headend between FS Midwest and random alternate feeds when Kansas City specific content is on.

FS Indiana is also a subregion of FS Midwest, FS Oklahoma and FS New Orleans are subregions of FSN Southwest, FS Tennessee and FS Carolinas are subregions of FS South, and FS Wisconsin is a subregion of FS North.


----------



## lwilli201

KyL416 said:


> A full time version of your RSN doesn't exist, it's just a subregion of FS Midwest. What you see on cable is created on the fly by Fox remotely switching the receiver at your cable provider's headend between FS Midwest and random alternate feeds when Kansas City specific content is on.
> 
> FS Indiana is also a subregion of FS Midwest, FS Oklahoma and FS New Orleans are subregions of FSN Southwest, FS Tennessee and FS Carolinas are subregions of FS South, and FS Wisconsin is a subregion of FS North.


I am aware of that. They need to have more local programming, after all KC does have 2 major league teams plus a major league soccer team and surrounded by KU, KSU, MU, Wichita State. They do not even have a studio in KC. Royals pre and post game shows are done from a bar in right field. The main FSMW is all St Louis sports. I have little interest in that. There are times that I can not get any thing because there is nothing on FSKC and the Cardinals games are blacked out. I realize that KC is not alone in this regard. To make things worse, I am not in any NBA team viewing area as far as Directv is concerned. KC and my rural cable company carry the OKC Thunder games. Left out there too. On local cable FSKC has an alternate channel, FSKC+ in case Thunder games conflic with other games. St Louis is in the Indiana Pacer viewing area, go figure.


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> Directv has plenty of bandwidth available for it, even if the RDBS transponders don't end up being 100% dedicated to 4K (if they use a couple tpns for mirroring 95* for example) they've got plenty. If ESPN 4K is part time it will be due to the lack of content on ESPN's end, or lack of bandwidth from providers other than Directv, not a Directv issue.


and linear 4k is alive, ch9800


----------



## cypherx

P Smith said:


> and linear 4k is alive, ch9800


On D14? Is it on RDBS or regular ka band?


----------



## doctor j

Data suggests CH 9800 4K Test channel is on Directv 10 TPN 13 vPID 1010

Nothing in NIT Tables about RDBS or D-14 spots

Doctor j


----------



## harsh

JoeTheDragon said:


> ESPN UHD may end up being part time due to bandwidth.


So ESPN UHD would only show programming when there wasn't a full slate of HD games going on?


----------



## harsh

doctor j said:


> Data suggests CH 9800 4K Test channel is on Directv 10 TPN 13 vPID 1010


As I said in the UHD thread, this news is perplexing.


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> As I said in the UHD thread, this news is perplexing.


Why is it perplexing? It's a test channel.


----------



## KyL416

Back to the topic of D14, yesterday everything on 99ca was 0s

Right now
01-08 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
09-16 NA NA 95 NA 95 95 95 95
17-24 95 95 95 95 00 NA 00 NA
25-32 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA


----------



## HoTat2

KyL416 said:


> Back to the topic of D14, yesterday everything on 99ca was 0s
> 
> Right now
> 01-08 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
> 09-16 NA NA 95 NA 95 95 95 95
> 17-24 95 95 95 95 00 NA 00 NA
> 25-32 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA


Well, glad to see many of the even xpndrs lit up for a change.

And while understanding xpndr pair 9/10's inactivity for now due to SW2's pair 5/6, and numbers 21 and 23 while 0 for some reason right now are still defined in the tables. I wonder what's up with xpndrs 12, 22, and 24 still listed as N/A?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

studechip said:


> Why is it perplexing? It's a test channel.


It is perplexing because the test is being conducted on DIRECTV 10 in Ka band instead of DIRECTV 14.

It was assumed that UHD would use RDBS band and testing it on Ka seems at odds with that assumption.


----------



## slice1900

The 0s could mean that they are doing testing that utilizes unmodulated signals or signals modulated in a way that receivers can't comprehend them?


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> It is perplexing because the test is being conducted on DIRECTV 10 in Ka band instead of DIRECTV 14.
> 
> It was assumed that UHD would use RDBS band and testing it on Ka seems at odds with that assumption.


They have plenty of spare bandwidth on Ka, or will once they decide D14 is 'ready'. No reason they can't do testing or the few real 4K channels on Ka and migrate to RDBS later. I previously suggested they might do this, so it isn't that perplexing to me. If you are testing something new, it pays to reduce the number of variables in your testing. You roll it out in stages along the path towards the end state so if you run into problems you can narrow down the source of the issue more easily.

1) 4K video (already done - their VOD offering)
2) linear 4K video (what this appears to be doing)
3) 4K hardware (doing its own HEVC decoding and HDMI output instead of relying on RVU)
4) RDBS (new LNBs required)
5) transponder bonding (if they use DVB-S2X)

Maybe the linear channel is for testing 4K hardware, or maybe this linear viewing will go from Genie to 4K RVU client for now and the hardware testing is the next step.


----------



## dennisj00

harsh said:


> It is perplexing because the test is being conducted on DIRECTV 10 in Ka band instead of DIRECTV 14.
> 
> It was assumed that UHD would use RDBS band and testing it on Ka seems at odds with that assumption.


Possibly someone assumes too much?


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> It was assumed that UHD would use RDBS band and testing it on Ka seems at odds with that assumption.





dennisj00 said:


> Possibly someone assumes too much?


Exactly. One needs to adjust their assumptions to match reality. DirecTV can put channels wherever they want on their system.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> They have plenty of spare bandwidth on Ka, or will once they decide D14 is 'ready'. No reason they can't do testing or the few real 4K channels on Ka and migrate to RDBS later. I previously suggested they might do this, so it isn't that perplexing to me. If you are testing something new, it pays to reduce the number of variables in your testing.


Don't you suppose they've already determined most of what there is to know about RDBS? They've had RDBS downlink capacity in the form of RB-2A up there for almost five years now.

It seems like the faithful are always assuring me that DIRECTV knows what it is doing so having to take a step back seems odd.


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> It is perplexing because the test is being conducted on DIRECTV 10 in Ka band instead of DIRECTV 14.
> 
> It was assumed that UHD would use RDBS band and testing it on Ka seems at odds with that assumption.


Maybe, just MAYBE, they aren't testing the satellite, but the signal, and/or whether or not the receiving equipment is working properly.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> It seems like the faithful are always assuring me that DIRECTV knows what it is doing so having to take a step back seems odd.


It is not a step back. It is barely a step at all as it is currently a test channel. When a linear UHD channel is available to subscribers it will be a step.

Only those people who assumed that UHD would be exclusively on RDBS or exclusively on D-14 need to take a step back ... and wait to see where the content actually appears when available to subscribers.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Don't you suppose they've already determined most of what there is to know about RDBS? They've had RDBS downlink capacity in the form of RB-2A up there for almost five years now.
> 
> It seems like the faithful are always assuring me that DIRECTV knows what it is doing so having to take a step back seems odd.


How is it a "step back" to not use something they haven't used before for consumer reception and don't have need to use right away? It is only in your mind that this is a problem, if you paid attention to what is going on instead of always looking for signs of trouble in everything that doesn't meet your narrow minded expectations you might find fewer surprises in Directv's path.

Directv is at a crossroads right now where it is very difficult to speculate their future path because there are so many things that are unclear at the moment in terms of timeline for MPEG2 retirement, future of 110/119, timeline/technology for 4K deployment, timeline for usage of RDBS, plans for new LNBs or possibly even new dishes, timeline for wide scale deployment of DSWM or potentially full digital front ends for legacy LNBs, plans for new STB hardware, plans (if any) for OTA, plans for what to do with 95*, plans for completing HD rollout, plans for completing LiL coverage. Once they make a few moves in these areas it will be a lot easier to guess where the rest of the pieces are going to fall into place, but to claim that not using RDBS from day one of a 4K test channel indicates some surprise shows that as usual you are trying to cast Directv in a negative light, which is why no one should pay attention to your posts.


----------



## P Smith

Side-point is what the hell DTV doing with RDBS equipment the last five years ?! Or why does not using it ?!


----------



## Diana C

In my opinion, it will be a year or more before RDBS is actually used for DTH. They need to field test a RDBS LNB (which couldn't even be tried until D-14 was launched) and then manufacture them in commercial quantities. Until then any UHD content transmitted will be on Ka. I don't see any mystery here.


----------



## lwilli201

Diana C said:


> In my opinion, it will be a year or more before RDBS is actually used for DTH. They need to field test a RDBS LNB (which couldn't even be tried until D-14 was launched) and then manufacture them in commercial quantities. Until then any UHD content transmitted will be on Ka. I don't see any mystery here.


The voice of reason. :righton: Do you think a new LNB will be able to convert RDBS into something some of the current STB can use?


----------



## inkahauts

Diana C said:


> In my opinion, it will be a year or more before RDBS is actually used for DTH. They need to field test a RDBS LNB (which couldn't even be tried until D-14 was launched) and then manufacture them in commercial quantities. Until then any UHD content transmitted will be on Ka. I don't see any mystery here.


actually, as I recall they have been able to field test RDBS LNBS since d11 since it had the first test payload for that freq. and d12 had one as well.

However I agree there is no mystery to me either. I think that the dswim lab will be the one that takes over and grabs all the satelites when it is put into full production and use.


----------



## slice1900

lwilli201 said:


> The voice of reason. :righton: Do you think a new LNB will be able to convert RDBS into something some of the current STB can use?


Yes, it will absolutely be able to do that - SWM makes that automatic. However, if RDBS is used exclusively for 4K, the current receivers will never get firmware updates that allow them to see those transponders. The only way I see them doing so is if Directv mirrors content from 95 to the RDBS transponders to avoid installing the second dish for new installs. I think they will mirror 95, but have no idea if it will be to Ka or RDBS. If they mirrored 95 to RDBS, you swapped your LNB and re-did satellite setup you'd see a few RDBS transponders on a new satellite called 99r or whatever. Not that it would do much good if you didn't subscribe to any international packages.

For that matter, there's nothing stopping the D12 in SWM mode from watching programming on 99/103, if Directv gave them a firmware update that let them see those satellites and converted a transponder to DSS/MPEG2. They never will of course.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> In my opinion, it will be a year or more before RDBS is actually used for DTH. They need to field test a RDBS LNB (which couldn't even be tried until D-14 was launched) and then manufacture them in commercial quantities. Until then any UHD content transmitted will be on Ka. I don't see any mystery here.


Theoretically they could have done that field testing years ago using the RDBS spot beams from D12. But you're right of course since there was no reason for them to be in any rush since they knew they didn't need to have RDBS going until they have more than a handful of full time 4K channels.

They may also want to wait due to the uncertainty over RDBS at 103, with that mess with ITU priority and Charlie Ergen using a Canadian company to try to screw over Directv's plans. Directv might end up having to avoid all interference with RDBS from 103 in Canada, which would make it effectively useless for CONUS as they couldn't provide a signal anywhere within a few degrees of the Canadian border. Why build a LNB capable of receiving RDBS from 103 if they can't use it?


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> Yes, it will absolutely be able to do that - SWM makes that automatic. However, if RDBS is used exclusively for 4K, the current receivers will never get firmware updates that allow them to see those transponders. The only way I see them doing so is if Directv mirrors content from 95 to the RDBS transponders to avoid installing the second dish for new installs. I think they will mirror 95, but have no idea if it will be to Ka or RDBS. If they mirrored 95 to RDBS, you swapped your LNB and re-did satellite setup you'd see a few RDBS transponders on a new satellite called 99r or whatever. Not that it would do much good if you didn't subscribe to any international packages.
> 
> For that matter, there's nothing stopping the D12 in SWM mode from watching programming on 99/103, if Directv gave them a firmware update that let them see those satellites and converted a transponder to DSS/MPEG2. They never will of course.


I think I disagree. 

I think even the current genies when connected to RVU tvs will be able to offer linear channels RVU tvs.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> The 0s could mean that they are doing testing that utilizes unmodulated signals or signals modulated in a way that receivers can't comprehend them?


Theorizing I wonder if "N/A" means a xpndr is not defined in the NITs for CONUS xpndr screens and/or is not relavent to your local market for the spotbeam screens.

A "0" means its defined in the system tables and/or for a local market, but there is either no signal available or just an unmodulated carrier being received.

And having signal levels means a modulated signal of either actual programming or null packets like what D14 is probably broadcasting right now on most of it's CONUS xpndrs.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

I've not seen the specifically idea does works;

the letters "n/a" or signal 0 tell nothing about NIT and visa versa.

It's just FW tables.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> I think they will mirror 95, but have no idea if it will be to Ka or RDBS.


Consider that if they got their act together, they could do what little international stuff they have left in MPEG4 in one of the conventional slots.

If I counted correctly, they're only serving up Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Korean and Russian channels in quantity on six transponders.

It is all in being creative about how you divvy up the customer base.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Consider that if they got their act together, they could do what little international stuff they have left in MPEG4 in one of the conventional slots.


Of course they can, but if they plan to use all the new Ka capacity for additional HD they might choose to use RDBS for the mirror. It will be MPEG4 no matter what - Directv would be doing this to avoid a second dish on new installs, and all new installs are HD / MPEG4 capable now.

The main benefit to using Ka for this would be for existing HD customers adding international packages; they could turn that on instantly just like adding any other package. So Ka is the preferable solution, but if Directv wants to go "all HD" (in the sense of offering every channel they carry in HD if it exists and they are allowed to) they might not have room to mirror those 95* channels. There are a lot of SD channels (60 to 80 depending on what you count) yet to upgrade to HD, not even including new channels they don't offer at all today. They'd need two or three transponders to mirror the 52 unique MPEG4 SD channels on 95, and there will be plenty of room on RDBS until after whatever date end up shutting down MPEG2 and freeing up 101.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> I think I disagree.
> 
> I think even the current genies when connected to RVU tvs will be able to offer linear channels RVU tvs.


Yeah maybe, I suppose that would extend their investment in the current Genies. If they made Genies that were a true server (no video output) that only talked to clients I'd be more willing to buy this theory. Having a Genie that can drive 4K TVs but can't connect to one would be an odd duck, and probably pretty confusing for the typical consumer who would see the HDMI output and not understand why it can't plug in to their 4K TV.

With the way things are going with Vidipath / CVP-2 (developed by Jethead, the same guys who developed RVU and using all the same protocols so likely very similar) which appears to be the heavy favorite to form the basis for the future cablecard replacement it might make more sense for Directv to make the Genie a server anyway. The cable box would be a similar server, consumers could buy TVs or "set tops" (that could be as small as an HDMI stick) that talk DTCP-IP to them using CVP-2 or RVU for display. Add in a little NAS device that speaks DTCP-IP and there's your storage. It would be pretty easy to integrate cable, satellite, OTA, streaming delivery since delivery is all IP. All Directv has to make is the Genie 'server' that houses tuners (and the next step, why even bother with the box, just add the tuners to an LNB that outputs DTCP-IP RVU streams)

I hope that's the direction things are going because it would make my setup a lot easier and a lot more flexible. I wouldn't have to care about Directv's lack of proper OTA support. I'd lose having the OTA channels in Directv's guide, but if they do things right I wouldn't be forced to use Directv's UI to access their channels at that point anyway.

With the timing of the new Apple TV, I'm thinking this is exactly what it is supposed to do. Comcast was already working with Tivo on a "cablecard replacement" and has been working with Apple as well. I think they will be leading the market (scary prospect to think about, Comcast leading the market) with this type of solution. Everyone else will be playing catch up. Maybe Directv is ready too and are just waiting for the right time to announce. Sure would be interesting if the Apple TV could function as a Genie Client and the Comcast equivalent at the same time, but use an Apple designed UI


----------



## harsh

If you're pumping everything across the network (both source and sink), You're going to have to use something more robust than today's DECA.


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> Yeah maybe, I suppose that would extend their investment in the current Genies. If they made Genies that were a true server (no video output) that only talked to clients I'd be more willing to buy this theory. Having a Genie that can drive 4K TVs but can't connect to one would be an odd duck, and probably pretty confusing for the typical consumer who would see the HDMI output and not understand why it can't plug in to their 4K TV.
> 
> With the way things are going with Vidipath / CVP-2 (developed by Jethead, the same guys who developed RVU and using all the same protocols so likely very similar) which appears to be the heavy favorite to form the basis for the future cablecard replacement it might make more sense for Directv to make the Genie a server anyway. The cable box would be a similar server, consumers could buy TVs or "set tops" (that could be as small as an HDMI stick) that talk DTCP-IP to them using CVP-2 or RVU for display. Add in a little NAS device that speaks DTCP-IP and there's your storage. It would be pretty easy to integrate cable, satellite, OTA, streaming delivery since delivery is all IP. All Directv has to make is the Genie 'server' that houses tuners (and the next step, why even bother with the box, just add the tuners to an LNB that outputs DTCP-IP RVU streams)
> 
> I hope that's the direction things are going because it would make my setup a lot easier and a lot more flexible. I wouldn't have to care about Directv's lack of proper OTA support. I'd lose having the OTA channels in Directv's guide, but if they do things right I wouldn't be forced to use Directv's UI to access their channels at that point anyway.
> 
> With the timing of the new Apple TV, I'm thinking this is exactly what it is supposed to do. Comcast was already working with Tivo on a "cablecard replacement" and has been working with Apple as well. I think they will be leading the market (scary prospect to think about, Comcast leading the market) with this type of solution. Everyone else will be playing catch up. Maybe Directv is ready too and are just waiting for the right time to announce. Sure would be interesting if the Apple TV could function as a Genie Client and the Comcast equivalent at the same time, but use an Apple designed UI


The Cablecard replacement is now in the hands of an industry working group (including cable, satellite and IPTV vendors) that is to make recommendations to the FCC. Everyone is speculating that CVP-2 will be the basis, since the cable companies are already under a mandate to support it, but anything is still possible at this point.

The announcement of the committee members: http://www.fcc.gov/document/appointment-members-downloadable-security-advisory-committee


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> If you're pumping everything across the network (both source and sink), You're going to have to use something more robust than today's DECA.


Yeah ...

Using the encoder rates DIRECTV does for current HD. (around 7-8 mb/s max.) you might be able to get away with MoCA 1.1 for a "fine granularity" DSWiM LNBF where demodulation to baseband I and Q signals takes place in the LNBF.

But for 4K, I agree that MoCA 2.0 would be required for distribution from such an LNBF even with the exceptional bit rate reduction afforded by HEVC compression.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary Toma

P Smith said:


> I've not seen the specifically idea does works;
> 
> the letters "n/a" or signal 0 tell nothing about NIT and visa versa.
> 
> It's just FW tables.


I too have tried to make sense of the N/A and [0] values. But no logic has been discovered.

The only clear correlation is a negative one: While they tend to agree with each other in the long term, the System Information data and the Signal Strength displays appear to be fully independent of each other.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah ...
> 
> Using the encoder rates DIRECTV does for current HD. (around 7-8 mb/s max.) you might be able to get away with MoCA 1.1 for a "fine granularity" DSWiM LNBF where demodulation to baseband I and Q signals takes place in the LNBF.
> 
> But for 4K, I agree that MoCA 2.0 would be required for distribution from such an LNBF even with the exceptional bit rate reduction afforded by HEVC compression.


Broadcom, Maxlinear and others have 8 full DVB-S2 tuners on a chip; next generation will be 16. While you could integrate them onto the DSWM chip, that isn't likely to make sense. Stick that in the LNB, upgrade DECA to MoCA 2.0 and you're good to go for 4K.

This only makes sense if they were no longer making Genies with HDMI outputs and relied on clients alone.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

slice1900 said:


> Broadcom, Maxlinear and others have 8 full DVB-S2 tuners on a chip; next generation will be 16. While you could integrate them onto the DSWM chip, that isn't likely to make sense. Stick that in the LNB, upgrade DECA to MoCA 2.0 and you're good to go for 4K.
> 
> This only makes sense if they were no longer making Genies with HDMI outputs and relied on clients alone.


 :up: :up: :up:


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Diana C said:


> The Cablecard replacement is now in the hands of an industry working group (including cable, satellite and IPTV vendors) that is to make recommendations to the FCC. Everyone is speculating that CVP-2 will be the basis, since the cable companies are already under a mandate to support it, but anything is still possible at this point.
> 
> The announcement of the committee members: http://www.fcc.gov/document/appointment-members-downloadable-security-advisory-committee


just along as no system can push per tuner or per device fees / force you to rent a gateway. Or at the very least that gateway / 1st box must be fully part the base package price. Now they can change 4K / HD fees but just think of cable co's will do to roast a system that has a $15-$20 HD fee.


----------



## slice1900

JoeTheDragon said:


> just along as no system can push per tuner or per device fees / force you to rent a gateway. Or at the very least that gateway / 1st box must be fully part the base package price. Now they can change 4K / HD fees but just think of cable co's will do to roast a system that has a $15-$20 HD fee.


If they want to keep that income stream they'll do so, just like Directv does even if you use RVU TVs instead of Directv devices to view content. The only way they won't have that option is if the FCC make rules that prevent it, but I wouldn't hold my breath.


----------



## inkahauts

Even Netflix has limits on how many devices and so does HBO and others. That's in a way charging per outlet as well. That's a practice that will never leave as everyone does it.


----------



## P Smith

it went too far off-topic 
:backtotop:


----------



## JoeTheDragon

slice1900 said:


> If they want to keep that income stream they'll do so, just like Directv does even if you use RVU TVs instead of Directv devices to view content. The only way they won't have that option is if the FCC make rules that prevent it, but I wouldn't hold my breath.


And ISP may try make you pay per system / IP with IPv6 and sat NO NAT / you must you our router that locks that out / try charge people with a crime like they did with people who hacked cable modem in the past. Also in the past they tried lock into into one IP / no routers. The FCC may make rules on that and they may just spill over to tv as well.


----------



## Renard

Direct 15 arrived in Kourou for next launch in May

http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2015/1275.asp


----------



## HoTat2

Renard said:


> Direct 15 arrived in Kourou for next launch in May
> 
> http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2015/1275.asp


Yeah, story already posted in the D15 thread yesterday.

http://dbstalk.com/index.php?/topic/[email protected]#entry3350133

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

GPredict (and other calculators based on Predict) places DIRECTV 14 at 99.29W this morning. If the TLE model is accurate, the satellite is well west of its designated box (99.210W - 99.260W).


----------



## doctor j

Earth Station E-140116 finally received it's license on 3/25/2015

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SESLIC2014111200848&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

Doctor j


----------



## HoTat2

doctor j said:


> Earth Station E-140116 finally received it's license on 3/25/2015
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SESLIC2014111200848&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number
> 
> Doctor j


Yeah, noticed that yesterday;

Interesting new dual use earth station for the NWUF also designated as "NWKAR5."

A 13.2m dish mfr. by General Dynamics for uplinking A/V programming to the RDBS band payload on D14 at 99W and providing TT&C services on the Ka-hi band for D14 as well.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> GPredict (and other calculators based on Predict) places DIRECTV 14 at 99.29W this morning. If the TLE model is accurate, the satellite is well west of its designated box (99.210W - 99.260W).


It has already been explained to you why the TLE model is not accurate for predicting the location of the satellite in its box, not that this stopped you from implying Directv has lost control of D14.


----------



## studechip

Anything to further the FUD about Directv.


----------



## cypherx

studechip said:


> Anything to further the FUD about Directv.


You know what's funny about this post is that I saw it in Tapatalk and I immediately thought "I bet that's a response to user harsh".


----------



## studechip

cypherx said:


> You know what's funny about this post is that I saw it in Tapatalk and I immediately thought "I bet that's a response to user harsh".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImageUploadedByTapatalk1428083199.621377.jpg


Not too difficult to figure out, am I?


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> It has already been explained to you why the TLE model is not accurate for predicting the location of the satellite in its box, not that this stopped you from implying Directv has lost control of D14.


The issue before was that the TLE interpreter I was using (Orbitron) was giving incorrect results. Predict doesn't seem to have that problem.

I never bought into the argument that TLEs weren't mathematical models but were instead a instantaneous snapshot.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> I never bought into the argument that TLEs weren't mathematical models but were instead a instantaneous snapshot.


So the moon is made of cheese?

Don't worry about the location of DirecTV 14. If there was a problem They'll let you know.
Michael White has you on speed dial, doesn't he?


----------



## studechip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug8aM9v40Sg


----------



## inkahauts

doctor j said:


> Earth Station E-140116 finally received it's license on 3/25/2015
> 
> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SESLIC2014111200848&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number
> 
> Doctor j


This may be another huge reason we haven't seen much from d14 yet. They waited to start doing things with it till it had its own earth station licensed.. Oh the logic in that! :lol:

Anyone know how easy and seamless it is to change an earth station while a sat is on air vs changing what sat a channel comes from?


----------



## YUMA11

What means transponders -32,-33 
Satellite 99(s)














Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## inkahauts

Well thats new... Can you zoom out and show the entire screen please?


----------



## YUMA11

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## Go Beavs

Firmware glitch... probably


----------



## inkahauts

No I wanted to see the entire tv screen to see the rest of what was on screen.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> This may be another huge reason we haven't seen much from d14 yet. They waited to start doing things with it till it had its own earth station licensed.. Oh the logic in that! :lol:
> 
> Anyone know how easy and seamless it is to change an earth station while a sat is on air vs changing what sat a channel comes from?


I've been wondering about this Moxee license. I guess they can't do RDBS uplinks where they do Ku uplinks, since the Earth stations all indicate they receive the downlinks for everything they uplink. I assume that's to verify quality and perhaps feed back some pre-distortion on the uplinks to make up for atmospheric conditions or small defects in the linearity of individual TWTAs? Can't receive a clean RDBS downlink in the neighborhood of a big dish doing a Ku uplink since it is the same frequency (those living close enough to any Earth station uplinking Ku that they can see the dish may wish to rethink their hopes of signing up for Directv's 4K)

But that's only for RDBS. Is there any reason they wouldn't uplink D14's Ka hi from LABC and Castle Rock like they do everything else? Obviously Moxee needs to be capable of uplinking Ka to D14 - it has LiL and Moxee is one of the regional sites that uplinks locals. I doubt it is uplinking CONUS though.

I think it is more likely the license for Moxee to uplink to D14 signals the imminent lighting up of D14's spot beams.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> ...
> But that's only for RDBS. Is there any reason they wouldn't uplink D14's Ka hi from LABC and Castle Rock like they do everything else? Obviously Moxee needs to be capable of uplinking Ka to D14 - it has LiL and Moxee is one of the regional sites that uplinks locals. I doubt it is uplinking CONUS though.
> 
> I think it is more likely the license for Moxee to uplink to D14 signals the imminent lighting up of D14's spot beams.


Not sure what you mean here slice;

D14 has four uplink locations for Ka-hi programming. LABC, CRBC, NWUF, and SWUF and/or from any of these primary facilities' associated diversity sites.

The Ka CONUS+ programming as usual comes first from the LABC (And/or it's diversity site, the CBC in Long Beach, CA.) with Castle Rock as a backup.

The Ka transmission to D14 from the new earth station at Moxee is only for TT&C.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> It has already been explained to you why the TLE model is not accurate for predicting the location of the satellite in its box, not that this stopped you from implying Directv has lost control of D14.


The TLE represents the orbital model that is used and it appears that the day 92 model was errant. The day 93 model shows it in the box.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> The TLE represents the orbital model that is used and it appears that the day 92 model was errant. The day 93 model shows it in the box.


So your information was wrong and irrelevant. Back to on topic posts.


----------



## YUMA11

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## jimmie57

YUMA11 said:


> ImageUploadedByDBSTalk1428160267.108762.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImageUploadedByDBSTalk1428160304.072148.jpg
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Those satellites with the ( s ) after the number are spot beams and lots of the transponders may or may not be zero. Check the other satellites like 101, 99c, 103ca, 103cb and see what they are for checking your signal strength.

Are you have a particular problem ?


----------



## inkahauts

Plus what happens if you go back one screen and look at the signal strength of all the transponders at once? I think that's just a glitch...


----------



## bruceko

I am in the Seattle area. Has the transmitter strength increased on d14?
Due to trees my 99s and 99cb signals have always been low. Today i checked and all the 99cb transponders jumped up by about 15.
When I look now at 99s all transponders start off showing N/A. Not the N/A or -- that used to show. then after being scanned the strength for the transponders show. signal strength has increased on the also.


----------



## slice1900

D14 is 99ca, not 99cb. If your 99cb strength increased then either a branch fell off the tree or the wind fixed the aim of your dish


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> D14 is 99ca, not 99cb. If your 99cb strength increased then either a branch fell off the tree or the wind fixed the aim of your dish


Well actually the 99cb or 99c screens of the current NR firmwares have the CONUS xpndr levels from D11 and D14 strangely conflated.

Where xpndrs 1-14 are from D11 as is normal, but xpndrs 15-24, with 22 and 24 as N/A and 21 and 23 as 0, are coming from D14. Which means D14's readings are only partial with its other presently active xpndrs 11, 13, and 14 hidden by the overlap with D11's same numbers.

But you are right that none of this would account for the previous poster's suddenly higher signal level readings.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Well actually the 99cb or 99c screens of the current NR firmwares have the CONUS xpndr levels from D11 and D14 strangely conflated.


Since he said 99cb instead of 99c I assume he's running newer firmware. They've started pushing out NR firmware on H2x/HR2x recently that includes 99ca/99cb.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Since he said 99cb instead of 99c I assume he's running newer firmware. They've started pushing out NR firmware on H2x/HR2x recently that includes 99ca/99cb.


No some receivers like my Genie (HR34) that is running the NR are labeled 99cb whereas others simply say 99c.

But either way they both show the conflated SS screen.

And yes I see a new NR being rolled out for the Genie at least and hope it will correct this mixed screen with separate 99ca and cb screens.

In fact I tried force downloading the next NR for the Genie last night x09F2, but started too late and DIRECTV removed it from the stream at about the 63% point. Will try again tonight.

UPDATE: Forced update to x09F2 on Genie very early this morning around 2:45 AM. 99ca is (finally) displaying now on an NR release.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Oli74

Happy Easter all 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

Oli74 said:


> *Happy Easter all*


Yeah... our life is much simple and enjoyable then the damn sats-tpn-channels-FW-SS-ca-cb-99-103- endless posts...


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN

What do you got to do the force update


----------



## P Smith

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> What do you got to do the force update


join to CE forum


----------



## alnielsen

First rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about Fight Club.


----------



## HoTat2

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> What do you got to do the force update


See my PM ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## doctor j

FCC grant
Update to E120109 for T&TC for Directv 14

http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SESMOD2014111200861&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

Doctor j


----------



## cypherx

I pulled up the address on that FCC grant. Wow what a cool looking aerial view of the facility. Wish street view was available. Neat stuff.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/5454+Garton+Rd,+Castle+Rock,+CO+80104/@39.2712879,-104.8061952,703a,20y,41.14t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x876cbc7047429ea9:0x6815bd46d7f5fb6c


----------



## dpeters11

I'd never noticed this if it's been used before, but they actually use an employee's home address in Maryland.


----------



## Oli74

My receiver is updating right now









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Oli74

After new update software I wonder what new software was updated?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HoTat2

Oli74 said:


> After new update software I wonder what new software was updated?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As pertaining to this thread, the 99ca signal level screen for D14 appears in this NR and 99s now uses D14's spotbeam xpndr spacing for numbers 1-8.

For all else involving this update, see here...

http://dbstalk.com/index.php?/topic/217216-HD-Receivers,-DVRs-and-R22-0x097F,-Issues/Discussion

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## longrider

cypherx said:


> I pulled up the address on that FCC grant. Wow what a cool looking aerial view of the facility. Wish street view was available. Neat stuff.
> 
> https://www.google.com/maps/place/5454+Garton+Rd,+Castle+Rock,+CO+80104/@39.2712879,-104.8061952,703a,20y,41.14t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x876cbc7047429ea9:0x6815bd46d7f5fb6c


There is not much viewing permitted there, I live just a few miles east of there so one day I though to check it out. Not only is the entire facility in a perimeter fence with a guard shack at the gate but even where the access road branches off the public street there are multiple signs, "private road", "no access", "video surveillance in use". I am surprised there is not one "trespassers will be shot on sight"  I dont know what they are concerned about, at most uplink facilities while the dishes are in a secured area you can still pull up to the front of the building.


----------



## dpeters11

longrider said:


> There is not much viewing permitted there, I live just a few miles east of there so one day I though to check it out. Not only is the entire facility in a perimeter fence with a guard shack at the gate but even where the access road branches off the public street there are multiple signs, "private road", "no access", "video surveillance in use". I am surprised there is not one "trespassers will be shot on sight"  I dont know what they are concerned about, at most uplink facilities while the dishes are in a secured area you can still pull up to the front of the building.


Back when they did the Undercover Boss, there was a clip of White in what looked like an uplink facility. Probably Los Angeles, not this one, but I really wanted to see that. Too bad it didn't make the cut. We just have to go with the pictures on Solid Signal.


----------



## HoTat2

longrider said:


> There is not much viewing permitted there, I live just a few miles east of there so one day I though to check it out. Not only is the entire facility in a perimeter fence with a guard shack at the gate but even where the access road branches off the public street there are multiple signs, "private road", "no access", "video surveillance in use". I am surprised there is not one "trespassers will be shot on sight"  I dont know what they are concerned about, at most uplink facilities while the dishes are in a secured area you can still pull up to the front of the building.


Yeah ...

Don't understand why the main broadcast buildings are heavily fenced off that why.

Paranoia over corporate secrecy?

The uplink dishes I can understand, as those are more for the public's protection than DIRECTV's. Since you do not want to be close around them when they're broadcasting. That high level of microwave RF energy is obviously very dangerous to your health beyond just a few minutes of exposure.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## KyL416

Preventing copper theft might be a reason.

If the night shift is just a few engineers monitoring the control room while the rest of the building is vacant, you might want more protection than just a few security guards patrolling the grounds. Security guards can only do so much, but if they already smashed the equipment and starting ripping out copper by the time they notice, it can be months or years before normal operations can resume.


----------



## slice1900

Not sure what changed specifically, but a few weeks ago my H20s would show a screen for 99c with extra entries for some of the D14 tpns. Now entering the satellite signal strength screen hangs the box and it requires a RBR. I sure hope Directv is planning on pushing out a firmware update for the H20s to add the 99ca/99cb screens. I know they're obsolete, but I'm sure they still have a lot of them out in the field and until there is a better solution for OTA they'll pry them out of my cold dead hands


----------



## KyL416

The satellite 99A odd and even test channels appeared on 9504 and 9505

Also, those existing channels that were in test mode are now live from D14


----------



## Oli74

KyL416 said:


> The satellite 99A odd and even test channels appeared on 9504 and 9505
> 
> Also, those existing channels that were in test mode are now live from D14


More testing channel?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN

What channels were the ones testing


----------



## KyL416

The ones in this post are now coming from D14:
http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/200951-transponder-maps-domestic-dla-data-refresh-4222015/page-34#entry3355557


----------



## HoTat2

Oli74 said:


> More testing channel?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No, these "test channels" on 9504 and 9505 are referring to customer test channels for checking satellite dish reception.

Not programming channels in testing.

They're an important sign in that they usually don't appear until the satellite is providing actual programming customers can now see like today from D14.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## stoutman

Ok, let me try this again for those who can figure this out. Last week showed my CW got hot for HD. After several posts about this, I have a follow up. My guide shows the station twice. Both a SD and HD feed would be my guess. I have SD hidden on my guide. Both are 480 at this point. Do you have a guess on what is the cause for the issue to get the HD up and in the clear? Their is an obvious hiccup at this point.


----------



## jimmie57

stoutman said:


> Ok, let me try this again for those who can figure this out. Last week showed my CW got hot for HD. After several posts about this, I have a follow up. My guide shows the station twice. Both a SD and HD feed would be my guess. I have SD hidden on my guide. Both are 480 at this point. Do you have a guess on what is the cause for the issue to get the HD up and in the clear? Their is an obvious hiccup at this point.


Try removing the channel from your favorite list and look at the guide to make sure they / it is gone.
Then go back and add the HD version of the channel.


----------



## stoutman

Did not do anything. Why is there two channels for it is the question that probably has the answer hidden in it after hiding SD again.


----------



## Oli74

stoutman said:


> Did not do anything. Why is there two channels for it is the question that probably has the answer hidden in it after hiding SD again.


Reboot the receiver it will go away

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stoutman

Oli74 said:


> Reboot the receiver it will go away
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stoutman

No, it did not work. Still two SD channels.


----------



## HoTat2

stoutman said:


> Did not do anything. Why is there two channels for it is the question that probably has the answer hidden in it after hiding SD again.


Again I thought it was suggested earlier that the problem was that your market is receiving two SD local feeds of the same station. One on Ku band/MPEG-2 from 119 and one on Ka band/MPEG-4 at 99 or 103?

And the receiver has a shortcoming in it's firmware where the "Hide SD Duplicates" option can't discriminate between duplicate SD channals having those differences.

Can you do me a favor? Do you know how, and can you run the SHEF command from a PC, Smartphone, tablet, etc., connected to your network on both those SD channels and post the results?

Note: You may want to delete the portions near the end of the character string representing the RID and CAM (access card) numbers for security purposes.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## stoutman

HoTat2 said:


> Again I thought it was suggested earlier that the problem was that your market is receiving two SD local feeds of the same station. One on Ku band/MPEG-2 from 119 and one on Ka band/MPEG-4 at 99 or 103?
> 
> And the receiver has a shortcoming in it's firmware where the "Hide SD Duplicates" option can't discriminate between duplicate SD channals having those differences.
> 
> Can you do me a favor? Do you know how, and can you run the SHEF command from a PC, Smartphone, tablet, etc., connected to your network on both those SD channels and post the results?
> 
> Note: You may want to delete the portions near the end of the character string representing the RID and CAM (access card) numbers for security purposes.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Sorry, I am not that skilled and I have all apples...Will Directv recognize the problem and fix it.


----------



## HoTat2

stoutman said:


> Sorry, I am not that skilled and I have all apples...Will Directv recognize the problem and fix it.


Having Apple shouldn't matter, if your boxes are networked the SHEF command will work.

You can find the tutorial here;
http://dbstalk.com/index.php?/topic/200951-Transponder-Maps:-Domestic-&-DLA--~--Data-Refresh-4/22/2015

Take your time studying it....

I ask because the SHEF will reveal the host satellites. But yes this is something DIRECTV will have to correct likely with a firmware update.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## KyL416

If you're talking about Rochester, the new MPEG4 feed for the CW is indeed SD only. They've been adding MPEG4 versions of the remaining SD locals for several 119 markets so people can get all of their locals with just a Slimline 3.

Since the CW affiliate is on a subchannel there is no mandate for them to carry it in HD like main channels, even if over the air it's broadcasting in HD. You'll probably have to wait until the contract with the station's owner is up for renewal.


----------



## stoutman

Here it is:

"command": true,
"param": true,
"prefix": true,
"return": {
"data": "000EFFFF1009FF10601062FFFF000BDF16041A140219070000000000000000000000723BF4904D00056514B82C",
"response": 244,
"value": 0
},
"status": {
"code": 200,
"commandResult": 0,
"msg": "OK.",
"query": "/serial/processCommand?cmd=FA83"
}
}


----------



## stoutman

KyL416 said:


> If you're talking about Rochester, the new MPEG4 feed for the CW is indeed SD only. They've been adding MPEG4 versions of the remaining SD locals for several 119 markets so people can get all of their locals with just a Slimline 3.
> 
> Since the CW affiliate is on a subchannel there is no mandate for them to carry it in HD like main channels, even if over the air it's broadcasting in HD. You'll probably have to wait until the contract with the station's owner is up for renewal.


The data from Gary says it is HD feed.


----------



## KyL416

stoutman said:


> The data from Gary says it is HD feed.


Gary has said the data doesn't indicate if it's HD, just that it's MPEG4 instead of MPEG2. Until recently it was safe to assume that a MPEG4 local is HD if it's a market that has MPEG2 SD locals, but that is no longer the case now that they're adding MPEG4 SD versions of channels for several markets that are on 119.

The Rochester CW affiliate is indeed MPEG4 SD, the update is listed in a password protected section so I can't link to it, but here's a screenshot:


----------



## stoutman

KyL416 said:


> Gary has said the data doesn't indicate if it's HD, just that it's MPEG4 instead of MPEG2. Until recently it was safe to assume that a MPEG4 local is HD if it's a market that has MPEG2 SD locals, but that is no longer the case now that they're adding MPEG4 SD versions of channels for several markets that are on 119.
> 
> The Rochester CW affiliate is indeed MPEG4 SD, the update is listed in a password protected section so I can't link to it, but here's a screenshot:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rochester.png


thank you! It is strange since they just signed with Sinclair last year. I just assumed they could not deliver the HD due to capacity and as soon as capacity came we would get it. We got the SD last year with the Sinclair agreement.


----------



## HoTat2

stoutman said:


> Here it is:
> 
> "command": true,
> "param": true,
> "prefix": true,
> "return": {
> "data": "000EFFFF1009FF10601062FFFF000BDF16041A140219070000000000000000000000723BF4904D00056514B82C",
> "response": 244,
> "value": 0
> },
> "status": {
> "code": 200,
> "commandResult": 0,
> "msg": "OK.",
> "query": "/serial/processCommand?cmd=FA83"
> }
> }


Ok, good;

This SHEF string indicates an MPEG4, either HD or SD (SD we now know) channel coming from a local spotbeam of satellite D11 at 99W.

Now can you run the SHEF command on the other SD channel and post the results?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

If this is simply them preparing to make that market accessible to people without requiring 119 then there is no fix to hide one of those channels. Not till everyone in the market has mpeg4 equipment.


----------



## HoTat2

inkahauts said:


> If this is simply them preparing to make that market accessible to people without requiring 119 then there is no fix to hide one of those channels. Not till everyone in the market has mpeg4 equipment.


Lost me there inky;

Assuming this can even be corrected by software of course. Why can't DIRECTV put out a FW update in the meantime to eliminate this duplicate SD channel display problem in the guide for those that have MPEG-4 receivers?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

They might figure it isn't going to be a problem for long enough to bother making the update. You'd think it would be simple, but who knows. The pace of updates for the H2x/HR2x series seems to be slowing down a lot, after they release the H44 firmware upgrades for those older HD/DVR models may become as rare as upgrades for the H20.


----------



## tomspeer46

stoutman said:


> Sorry, I am not that skilled and I have all apples...Will Directv recognize the problem and fix it.


You have to understand that no one here represents DirecTV. We are mostly tech savvy customers that try to analyze and understand what DirecTV is doing. And many have been doing it for a long time. I believe DirecTV is trying to gradually eliminate the need for spotbeams from 119 in the Northeast markets, and has been systematically providing all local channels that come from 119 on the same transponder that carries the local HD signals, even if they are in SD. The fact that DirecTV is not carrying your CW station in HD is probably a contractual matter between DirecTV and the station owner.


----------



## inkahauts

Here's the thing DIRECTV has never to my knowledge set up a way for a receiver to decide between two as channels and only show you one of them. There has never been a reason too. And in this case it'd be really difficult IMHO. They'd have to have the box figure out if it could get both versions then deicde to hide the 119 version. It's not a Hi Definition sd channel flag type a thing how they hide sd dupes.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> And in this case it'd be really difficult IMHO. They'd have to have the box figure out if it could get both versions then deicde to hide the 119 version. It's not a Hi Definition sd channel flag type a thing how they hide sd dupes.


It would not be hard to come up with a priority.


----------



## studechip

tomspeer46 said:


> You have to understand that no one here represents DirecTV. We are mostly tech savvy customers that try to analyze and understand what DirecTV is doing. And many have been doing it for a long time. *I believe DirecTV is trying to gradually eliminate the need for spotbeams from 119 in the Northeast *markets, and has been systematically providing all local channels that come from 119 on the same transponder that carries the local HD signals, even if they are in SD. The fact that DirecTV is not carrying your CW station in HD is probably a contractual matter between DirecTV and the station owner.


Are you saying that most of the 119 spots are used in the NE, or just that Directv wants to remove those that are used in the NE? Many of the spots from 119 are used in areas other than the NE.


----------



## slice1900

Pretty sure Directv wants to eliminate the need for 119 for all HD customers everywhere, but they may prioritize removing them from the NE first since the look angle makes LOS more problematic there.


----------



## HoTat2

studechip said:


> Are you saying that most of the 119 spots are used in the NE, or just that Directv wants to remove those that are used in the NE? Many of the spots from 119 are used in areas other than the NE.


No, this program is intended for HD customers with SD locals on 119, but have LOS blockages to that slot, the ability to receive all their market's locals including those without HD versions with SL-3 LNBs.

However, whenever you talk about switching off any of the older Ku/MPEG-2 SD feeds on 101 or 119 be they CONUS or spotbeam, the same difficult issue arises. How do you deal with the large amounts of SD only equipment out there which can only get that programming from those feeds?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## studechip

HoTat2 said:


> No, this program is intended for HD customers with SD locals on 119, but have LOS blockages to that slot, the ability to receive all their market's locals including those without HD versions with SL-3 LNBs.
> 
> However, whenever you talk about switching off any of the older Ku/MPEG-2 SD feeds on 101 or 119 be they CONUS or spotbeam, the same difficult issue arises. How do you deal with the large amounts of SD only equipment out there which can only get that programming from those feeds?
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


I'm not at all sure of the numbers, but I doubt there are many sd channels on 119 that don't have an hd, or at least an mpeg4, version on 99 or 103.


----------



## tomspeer46

HoTat2 said:


> No, this program is intended for HD customers with SD locals on 119, but have LOS blockages to that slot, the ability to receive all their market's locals including those without HD versions with SL-3 LNBs.
> 
> However, whenever you talk about switching off any of the older Ku/MPEG-2 SD feeds on 101 or 119 be they CONUS or spotbeam, the same difficult issue arises. How do you deal with the large amounts of SD only equipment out there which can only get that programming from those feeds?
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


They have done that in markets where it was in DirecTV's financial interest to do so, like retiring and selling a satellite. They notified all customers, over the course of a year, that they needed a free upgrade to continue receiving DirecTV. That's how some of us came to be in MPEG4 only markets. Once all the SD channels are also on MPEG4, they can stop doing new installs using 119. Over time, the cost of completely dropping MPEG2 in a market will dwindle, slowly.


----------



## caseyf5

Hello tomsper46, If they can get every broadcast off 119 and 110 doesn't seem to be used then they can put all of their satellite dishes to point just to 99, 101 and 103 which should make installing, aligning as well as inventory and installer training easier for DirecTV and the customers who will also benefit. :soapbox:


----------



## HoTat2

studechip said:


> I'm not at all sure of the numbers, but I doubt there are many sd channels on 119 that don't have an hd, or at least an mpeg4, version on 99 or 103.


No, I have no doubt there are very many;

But for the few markets that do, this program is nevertheless causing an annoying double listing of the same SD channels, one MPEG-4, one MPEG-2, in the guide for HD subs. in those markets with SL-5s and no LOS issues to 119.


----------



## HoTat2

tomspeer46 said:


> They have done that in markets where it was in DirecTV's financial interest to do so, like retiring and selling a satellite. They notified all customers, over the course of a year, that they needed a free upgrade to continue receiving DirecTV. That's how some of us came to be in MPEG4 only markets. Once all the SD channels are also on MPEG4, they can stop doing new installs using 119. Over time, the cost of completely dropping MPEG2 in a market will dwindle, slowly.


But there's a good example of the difficulty Tom;

I have to say the process of converting just those "comparatively" few subscribers with SD only equipment off of Ku/MPEG-2 at 72.5W to MPEG-4 local markets at 99 and 103 felt like forever to complete.

So in comparison, anyone care to guess how much SD only equipment is out there receiving locals from 119?

Also, of what real benefit does DIRECTV gain from just being able to turn off the LiL spotbeam payload from D7S at 119?

Anyone care to guess how many Spanish programming subs. there are out there with SD only gear receiving from the CONUS xpndrs at 119?


----------



## tomspeer46

caseyf5 said:


> Hello tomsper46, If they can get every broadcast off 119 and 110 doesn't seem to be used then they can put all of their satellite dishes to point just to 99, 101 and 103 which should make installing, aligning as well as inventory and installer training easier for DirecTV and the customers who will also benefit. :soapbox:


That is the case where I am right now in Eastern NC. It is the direction they are going for the Albany, NY DMA where my summer home is. The problem is that the NW fringes of the DMA falls just outside a reliable signal from the MPEG4 spotbeam. That is sparsely populated by humans (Deer, Bears, Beavers, Moose, etc rarely care about DirecTV). So some of the installers have to be able to handle an MPEG2 install. At both locations, I get a everything off an SL3S. BTW, I do know of a beaver lodge in the middle of a large pond that has an 18" dish sticking out of the top.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> But there's a good example of the difficulty Tom;
> 
> I have to say the process of converting just those "comparatively" few subscribers with SD only equipment off of Ku/MPEG-2 at 72.5W to MPEG-4 local markets at 99 and 103 felt like forever to complete.


I'll bet that's because they had to wait to launch enough satellites. How long after D12 went into service did they get off 72.5?

With the launch of D14, they should have the capacity they need in place today to do this. Once all the spot beams on D14 are active, there may not be any markets left that require 119.


----------



## YUMA11

When the d14 starts to get hd channels?


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## HoTat2

YUMA11 said:


> When the d14 starts to get hd channels?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


About April 25th it was first discovered D14 went live with 27 CONUS channels formally on D12. Followed shortly by local spotbeam markets now transitioning off Spaceway 2 to D14 as well.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## YUMA11

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## KyL416

Stay tuned to the weekly transponder updates in the Tips forum, each week so far something new has happened. First the migration of the SW2 channels for Puerto Rico, then some SW2 locals, then the 27 US channels followed, and most recently some more SW2 locals moved to D14.

Our current guess is that the locals are only temporary while they reconfigure some spot beams on SW2, once that's done those locals will probably move to spot beams on D14. Hopefully when it's all finished it will help some of those markets that have areas where no HD locals are available at the edge of the market and potentially launch locals for markets that don't have any locals at all.

The next few weeks should be interesting to see what they do with the bandwidth they got on D12 after those channels moved to D14, along with the additional D14 transponders they have available once the locals migraton is complete.


----------



## slice1900

In another thread I mentioned I was starting to believe Directv may have issues with D14's CONUS payload, and HoTat2 is thinking the same thing. If true, it would really put a crimp in any ideas about Directv adding the rest of the channels in HD, and being able to stop installing world direct dishes. This could require Directv to shuffle their future plans, and either use some of the RDBS transponders on 99/103 for something other than 4K (at the very least, mirroring the content on 95*) and/or speed up the timetable for shutting down MPEG2 SD to free up 101 earlier.

Several times in the past, when I've seen threads where someone has posted their 99ca readings, I've checked mine and sometimes find some pretty big discrepancies. Maybe they are changing often for whatever reason, or maybe they're different depending on where you are located. I'm not sure if it is technically possible to have different footprints for different CONUS transponders, but either that is happening or they are changing quite often. Either way, given the number that are completely unused and how non-functional many of the defined ones are, it doesn't look good for D14.

Might be interesting during one of the Friday night CE windows if a bunch of people checked their 99ca readings as close as possible to the exact same time (maybe 10:55 EDT, right before they will start their downloads, since there will be a lot of people around then) and posted them along with their location in the US in a thread here (probably would want to have them post their 99cb as well as a control to throw out results tainted by poor alignment)

Early on I had assumed they might be using D14's transponders for 4K broadcast testing, with DVB-S2X signals showing up as '0' on our receivers since they can't interpret them. While that's a possibility, it doesn't explain all the low non-zero readings commonly seen on 99ca.



HoTat2 said:


> His 99ca are the same levels I got from D14 yesterday. Today is the same except for xpndr 13 which is reading a useless 35.
> 
> So of the 11 defined xpndrs, 7 are really a 0 right now.
> 
> I'm really beginning to believe myself now there are technical problems with D14. At least for the CONUS beam payload xpndrs.


----------



## dpeters11

I'm in, I'll capture my 99ca and cb signals at that time.

At what point would AT&T/DirecTV have to issue a statement or filing regarding problems?


----------



## KyL416

I wouldn't jump to worst case scenario conclusions like that yet, we've seen all of those "0" transponders lit up when they were needed:
- The D10 fiasco where within hours they lit them up and moved many of the channels to D14 for a few weeks
- Some were the temporary home of some locals during the SW2 migrations
- Some were the temporary home of some Puerto Rican channels prior to them moving to D14's spotbeams

If I were to guess, they're saving them for the D15 transition where they need to move D10's 40+ channels (even more if previous commitments can't let them lose some push channels for a few weeks) to other satellites before they can fire up D15.


----------



## inkahauts

Yeah not buying an issue with d14. There's a ton of other reasons for zeros and such and I personally believe that it doesn't take much difference in location and installation setup to cause drastically different numbers. I set up a system at my uncles which is 70 miles away from
My folks who I also set up. I can got consistently 15 points higher on every 99 and 103 signal. A year latter when doing an upgrade to a genie the installer went ahead and replaced the dish and lnb both to get better signals. With it peaked it still
Gets about 5 points less than the place 70 miles south.


----------



## TXD16

inkahauts said:


> Yeah not buying an issue with d14. There's a ton of other reasons for zeros and such and I personally believe that it doesn't take much difference in location and installation setup to cause drastically different numbers...


One thing for sure, whatever is going on with D14, and we really don't know if it's intentional, anomalous, or a combination thereof, has nothing to do with location, LNBs, or dish peaking. With the exceptions listed below, all of my signals on the activated (non-N/A) ca/cb 99 and 103 signals are at 95 or above, and always have been, in fact, most are at 97+. However, 99(ca) now show zero levels on TPs 11, 14, 15, 16, 21, and 23, with a level of 42 on TP 13.


----------



## inkahauts

Yep, mine is about the same. I wonder if they are messing with something with the spaceways and such as well right now....


----------



## KyL416

The TPN 13 mystery has been answered:
D14 TPN 13
1010 - 9801 !4KTest (4K Linear Test Ch #2)


----------



## Tom Robertson

KyL416 said:


> The TPN 13 mystery has been answered:
> D14 TPN 13
> 1010 - 9801 !4KTest (4K Linear Test Ch #2)


Woohoo! Very cool!

Peace,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts

So, NASA channel do we think?


----------



## KyL416

I doubt it's for any specific 4K channel, just some internal tests. (i.e. probably an internal loop of 4k content so they can test linear 4k delivery)


----------



## HoTat2

KyL416 said:


> I doubt it's for any specific 4K channel, just some internal tests. (i.e. probably an internal loop of 4k content so they can test linear 4k delivery)


Just don't see why with the two R-band payloads well in place now such linear test channels are not happening there now instead of the Ka band if the R-band is to be the home for 4K.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

HoTat2 said:


> Just don't see why with the two R-band payloads well in place now such linear test channels are not happening there now instead of the Ka band if the R-band is to be the home for 4K.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Probably because no one has a lnb that can get R band yet.....


----------



## HoTat2

inkahauts said:


> Probably because no one has a lnb that can get R band yet.....


But do you think the recent apperance of the SL-3DR and SL-5DR in the sat. setup menu of some receivers is referring to vaporware?

Someone has to be field testing these on the ground I would think.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

I doubt they are out in the field yet. I also wonder if they will even bother launching r band till after they have more than a couple channels ready to go anyway, to preserve fuel, since they have the room.


----------



## slice1900

Yeah, they have plenty of excess capacity in the Ka band (assuming D14 is healthy...) so there's no reason to worry about R band yet.

One of the first principles of engineering is to minimize the number of variables when you test something. Putting 4K test channels on R band would mean testing two different things at once. Even once 4K goes 'live' there's little reason to mess with R band initially. How many channels do we think they'll have at the end of next year? Maybe three or four at most? One 4K channel at ~25-30 Mbps can fit in a transponder along with two HD channels. They could easily exceed a dozen 4K channels before they really need to start thinking about moving them to R band.

No reason to rush the R band LNBs...it is quite possible it will be a completely different design to the fully analog front end they've used unchanged from the AT9 to legacy SL3/SL5 to SWM LNB to SWM 13 LNB. If this new LNB is mostly digital, the longer they wait to begin mass production the cheaper and/or better it will be. Probably rolling 4K out like how they did HD - first they had HD channels on Ku, then they had the same channels on both Ku and Ka, eventually they only added channels on Ka and phased out the Ku HD channels.


----------



## west99999

There are some locations testing r band lnbs.


----------



## HoTat2

west99999 said:


> There are some locations testing r band lnbs.


Can you share any more details? ... 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

west99999 said:


> There are some locations testing r band lnbs.


It could be, but so far we've seen only added new items for such LNBF in setup menu, but _nothing_ in system tables. Duh!

PS. It's not R-band !


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> ...
> 
> PS. It's not R-band !


Not officially no, but for me at least P. Smith, since that is what the engineers and other representatives from Arianespace, DIRECTV and SS/L kept calling it during the lead up to and launch of D14 and 15 where I first heard the expression. I assumed that's just the new nickname for it. So started using it.

Certainly is a lot more convenient than the awkward "RDBS," "Reverse-DBS," "17/24 GHz BSS," etc.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

We cannot follow cheap talk of someone regardless if it west99999 or DTV PR person !
http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/frequency-letter-bands

R Band already taken ! It's

R band

WR-430

1.70 to 2.60 GHz
http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/rectangular-waveguide-dimensions


----------



## west99999

HoTat2 said:


> Can you share any more details? ...
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


All I know is the LNB is being used in some markets they sent my office one to use in training.


----------



## HoTat2

west99999 said:


> All I know is the LNB is being used in some markets they sent my office one to use in training.


Any tech. details you can give about the one sent to your office?

The SL-3SR or -5DR?

How many tuners can it support?

Thanks so far... 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

Not surprised they are testing R band LNBs - after all why add the entries to the firmware if they aren't out in the wild? But testing R band LNBs doesn't imply they are already using them to _receive R band broadcasts_. If it is significantly different from the existing LNBs (i.e. mostly digital front end, as opposed to taking the 10 year old analog KaKu design and gluing analog R band functionality onto it) the first testing step is "does it work well as a Ka/Ku LNB?"

As I said in a previous post, you want to limit variables and test one thing at a time. So first, "does this work as a LNB for what we need today, i.e. Ka/Ku?" Then you worry about, "does this work as an LNB for what we need tomorrow, i.e. R band?" Meanwhile they are separately testing 4K and using Ka for that testing, and there's probably little or no overlap between the people testing the new LNB and people testing 4K broadcasts, to reduce the variables. If you gave all the testers a 4K-capable HR64 and an R band LNB, and exclusively used R band for 4K broadcasts and the testers run into issues you have a troubleshooting problem: is it their TV, is it the HR64, is it the new LNB, or is it interference in the R band? (since that is the Ku band uplink frequency, anyone located within a few blocks of a major satellite uplink dish will have a lot of interference and may never be able to receive R band broadcasts)

When they do test R band, we aren't guaranteed to see system table entries right now. You never know, there could be some hardcoded functionality in the receiver firmware for that (some hidden functionality it is possible to activate)

And yes, I know that "R band" isn't correct but I'm just following the lingo others have chosen to use. Maybe when Directv starts talking about it more they'll settle on a specific wording we'll all switch to. If you want to be picky, calling Directv's 18.3 - 18.8 GHz and 19.7 to 20.2 GHz broadcasts "Ka band" isn't correct either...


----------



## bobnielsen

Also part of Directv's Ku-band is really in X-band.


----------



## RAD

TXD16 said:


> One thing for sure, whatever is going on with D14, and we really don't know if it's intentional, anomalous, or a combination thereof, has nothing to do with location, LNBs, or dish peaking. With the exceptions listed below, all of my signals on the activated (non-N/A) ca/cb 99 and 103 signals are at 95 or above, and always have been, in fact, most are at 97+. However, 99(ca) now show zero levels on TPs 11, 14, 15, 16, 21, and 23, with a level of 42 on TP 13.


Today I'm seeing readings in the mid 90's on 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20, zero on 16, 21 and 23.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## TXD16

RAD said:


> Today I'm seeing readings in the mid 90's on 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20, zero on 16, 21 and 23.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


Same.


----------



## slice1900

Scott posted a picture of the signal strength screen for R band on the other site. As expected, Directv is calling them 99(cr) and 103(cr). It showed all 0s, so not using it yet - any 4K testing must be using 99(ca) as we assumed (since they only added support for R band capable LNBs in the firmware quite recently)


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Scott posted a picture of the signal strength screen for R band on the other site. As expected, Directv is calling them 99(cr) and 103(cr). It showed all 0s, so not using it yet - any 4K testing must be using 99(ca) as we assumed (since they only added support for R band capable LNBs in the firmware quite recently)


Yeah, as I posted on the "other site" I wonder what the actual software download is which will enable the new R-band screens and the new LNB selections on the Genie?

So only my HR24s show the new LNB selections, but have no 99cr or 103cr s.s. screens.

Also I notice that while the doc. states that both 99cr and 103cr will appear, only 99cr is pictured which makes me curious if the doc.'s wording may have overstepped and that only 99cr will appear at least for now as R-band rights at 103W is still in legal dispute.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk

EDIT: Just checked on one of my HR24s here as a test and both the 99(cr) and 103 (cr) screens are there.


----------



## longrider

I would also think that you will have to have selected one of the R-band capable LNBs before the screen will appear


----------



## cypherx

Are they waiting for things like 4K ESPN, 4K HBO, etc... For r-band or do you think they will debut on the regular LNB with HEVC single transponder or MPEG4 transponder bonded?


----------



## HoTat2

longrider said:


> I would also think that you will have to have selected one of the R-band capable LNBs before the screen will appear


You're right,

As a test I selected one of the R-band LNB options (the "Slimline-5DR) in the setup of an HR24 here and the new 99 (cr) and 103 (cr) signal level screens appeared.

They all read zero levels of course on the 18 authorized xpndrs.

Got a legacy SL-5 LNB feeding a SWiM-16.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

This is very interesting stuff. I'll bet someone has these lnbs somewhere. And I wonder if maybe they have been testing all that stuff while we sit here and wait for signs of d15... It's evidently there we just can't see it yet!


----------



## stvcmty

HoTat2 said:


> As a test I selected one of the R-band LNB options (the "Slimline-5DR) in the setup of an HR24 here and the new 99 (cr) and 103 (cr) signal level screens appeared.
> 
> They all read zero levels of course on the 18 authorized xpndrs.
> 
> Got a legacy SL-5 LNB feeding a SWiM-16.


Did anything change with received signal on 110/119 transponders? I wonder if they are keeping the same stack plan for the R-band SL5. With the right filtering all the 110/119 transponders could fit in one 500MHz block on a coax so a legacy R-band LNB could use the 4 normal coax's and 1 flex port (99 Ka High/101/99 Ka Low 18V, 99 Ka High/101/99 Ka Low 13V, 103 ka High/119 R + 119 L+ 110/ 103 Ka low 18V, 103 Ka Low/99 R-band R/103 Ka High 18V, then on flex 99 R-band L, 103 R-band R, 103 R-band L). Granted if the LNB you selected is a SWM LNB, then how a legacy R-band LNB would talk to a SWM16 would not show up in signal levels on the receiver for 110/119.


----------



## HoTat2

stvcmty said:


> Did anything change with received signal on 110/119 transponders? I wonder if they are keeping the same stack plan for the R-band SL5. With the right filtering all the 110/119 transponders could fit in one 500MHz block on a coax so a legacy R-band LNB could use the 4 normal coax's and 1 flex port (99 Ka High/101/99 Ka Low 18V, 99 Ka High/101/99 Ka Low 13V, 103 ka High/119 R + 119 L+ 110/ 103 Ka low 18V, 103 Ka Low/99 R-band R/103 Ka High 18V, then on flex 99 R-band L, 103 R-band R, 103 R-band L). Granted if the LNB you selected is a SWM LNB, then how a legacy R-band LNB would talk to a SWM16 would not show up in signal levels on the receiver for 110/119.


Only evidence of digital SWM type Reverse Band capable LNBs have been revealed so far. The Slimline-3DR and -5DR.

So any method of frequency stacking used by their front ends to integrate the Reverse Band into the Ka/Ku stack would be hard to determine from these as it's all internal to the LNB's circuitry.

A legacy Reverse Band capable LNBF and possibly a new digital SWM multiswitch module to compliment it has yet to be revealed if at all.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

stvcmty said:


> ...I wonder if they are keeping the same stack plan for the R-band SL5. With the right filtering all the 110/119 transponders could fit in one 500MHz block on a coax so a legacy R-band LNB could use the 4 normal coax's and 1 flex port (99 Ka High/101/99 Ka Low 18V, 99 Ka High/101/99 Ka Low 13V, 103 ka High/119 R + 119 L+ 110/ 103 Ka low 18V, 103 Ka Low/99 R-band R/103 Ka High 18V, then on flex 99 R-band L, 103 R-band R, 103 R-band L). Granted if the LNB you selected is a SWM LNB, then how a legacy R-band LNB would talk to a SWM16 would not show up in signal levels on the receiver for 110/119.


You can't use improper definition of Reverse Band:
R Band already taken ! It's defined as:
*R band WR-430 1.70 to 2.60 GHz*
http://www.microwave...uide-dimensions


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> You're right,
> 
> As a test I selected one of the R-band LNB options (the "Slimline-5DR) in the setup of an HR24 here and the new 99 (cr) and 103 (cr) signal level screens appeared.
> 
> They all read zero levels of course on the 18 authorized xpndrs.
> 
> Got a legacy SL-5 LNB feeding a SWiM-16.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


I find this very interesting. It indicates that Directv will not necessarily use R band exclusively for 4K - if they did, why have those screens show up on an HR24? So maybe my thought about using it for mirroring the content on 95 and perhaps 119 will come to pass?

I had suggested in the past that we might never see a R band capable 5 LNB, as it would not be needed if they were going to mirror 119. But seeing that one indeed does exist, and thinking about it a bit, it makes sense that they'd have one even if they do plan to mirror 119. People with "exclusive" locals on 119 (SD locals that are on 119 only) along with people who have D12s, would still need access to 119 even if all the CONUS content there is replicated in MPEG4 elsewhere.

It also shows that the picture Scott posted wasn't necessarily from a receiver connected to a R band LNB. So maybe with one of those they aren't all reading 0s like they are when you 'lie' about your LNB in the setup screen, so I can't infer as I did in my previous post that the R band tpns haven't been lit up yet.


----------



## slice1900

stvcmty said:


> Did anything change with received signal on 110/119 transponders? I wonder if they are keeping the same stack plan for the R-band SL5. With the right filtering all the 110/119 transponders could fit in one 500MHz block on a coax so a legacy R-band LNB could use the 4 normal coax's and 1 flex port (99 Ka High/101/99 Ka Low 18V, 99 Ka High/101/99 Ka Low 13V, 103 ka High/119 R + 119 L+ 110/ 103 Ka low 18V, 103 Ka Low/99 R-band R/103 Ka High 18V, then on flex 99 R-band L, 103 R-band R, 103 R-band L). Granted if the LNB you selected is a SWM LNB, then how a legacy R-band LNB would talk to a SWM16 would not show up in signal levels on the receiver for 110/119.


We've speculated about legacy LNB stack plans to integrate R band previously, and there are a lot of ways to do it. 110/119 are already filtered and combined (what shows up as tpns 8, 10, 12 for 110 are actually 28, 30, 32 I believe) If you wanted to fit them in five coax you could stack all four R band blocks together - they are only 400 MHz each so with a 100 MHz gap instead of 200 MHz they'd all fit.

I wouldn't be surprised if they remove the guard bands entirely. The 500 MHz blocks have guard bands themselves (as do the actual transponders) so it wouldn't be difficult to achieve with digital filtering. The 400 MHz freed up in each coax's stack by removing the guard bands leaves enough room to insert the R band stacks (remember, these are only 18 transponders, not 24, so they do not require 500 MHz) This has the benefit of allowing existing equipment including SWM switches to be left in place and no new coax be run, just a simple LNB swap.

But maybe they use one or even two additional coax. It isn't like there will be many of these around with a 22 channel SWM LNB available, so they don't need to worry about residential customers complaining about having a bunch of coax on their roof.


----------



## P Smith

slice, what is R band in your posts doing ? Why not educate other people who are less technically *knowledgeable* and say correctly: *Reverse Band* ?


----------



## Tom Robertson

P Smith said:


> slice, what is R band in your posts doing ? Why not educate other people who are less technically *knowledgeable* and say correctly: *Reverse Band* ?


Slang and jargon develop on their own, no matter what the purists of language might otherwise wish. Reverse Band is so conveniently shortened to R band, the cause is likely already lost. And the other correct acronyms are not very friendly either. 

So educate all you want--though I don't suggest bashing people in the process. Nothing is accomplished except frustration all around. 

Peace,
TOm


----------



## P Smith

Tom, may I ask to call you T-man ? 

R Band already taken, sorry. And DTV documents stated *it as Reverse Band*. Or we could call LNBF as "eye", right ? Such low denomination is to low to accept it, sorry.
Perhaps you refering to slang/jargon, but missing the point - A CREATION, not wrongly using same TECHNICAL term.

Peace, T-man.


----------



## Tom Robertson

P Smith said:


> Tom, may I ask to call you T-man ?
> 
> R Band already taken, sorry. And DTV documents stated *it as Reverse Band*. Or we could call LNBF as "eye", right ? Such low denomination is to low to accept it, sorry.
> Perhaps you refering to slang/jargon, but missing the point - A CREATION, not wrongly using same TECHNICAL term.
> 
> Peace, T-man.


I've been called far worse. 

If this were an official working IEEE or ITU forum, I might agree to insisting correct nomenclature in all things. Since we're a bunch of peoples who are havin' fun talkin' entertainment stuff, I suggest the immortal words of Sargent Hulka, "lighten up, Francis."  We ain't writing documentation, we're not discussing the relative energy patterns of satellite uplinks and downlinks, and we're not really confusing multiple radio frequencies as, in the context, we generally know what we're saying.

Peace, S-dude. 
Tom


----------



## slice1900

Why such a rampage against "R band"? Why not complain about Ka band, which Directv refers to everywhere but is actually 26.5 - 40 GHz, well above the 18.3 - 20.2 range that Directv's Ka lo and Ka hi bands fall in?


----------



## P Smith

It's not a rampage, but merely attempt to bring normal term instead of totally one incorrectly reducted by someone who don't know squat about naming such thing.
Why the person is not using "cr" name if he got some clue from SS screen ?


----------



## alnielsen

R Band is just a shorting of Reverse Band. Just as some use DTV or D* for DirecTV. You have to consider the context inwhich the term is being used. Me thinks your just Trolling.


----------



## HoTat2

alnielsen said:


> R Band is just a shorting of Reverse Band. Just as some use DTV or D* for DirecTV. You have to consider the context inwhich the term is being used. Me thinks your just Trolling.


Yeah that's what I figured it simply was when I first heard the expression regularly being used by reps. at the Guyanna Space Center for DIRECTV, SS/L, Astrium and Arianespace, leading up to during and after the launch of D14 and D15. So I started using it.

But if it's going to cause that many problems with incorrect terminology then I'll just call it "Reverse Band."

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

alnielsen said:


> R Band is just a shorting of Reverse Band. Just as some use DTV or D* for DirecTV. You have to consider the context inwhich the term is being used. Me thinks your just Trolling.


The shortening create a collision with real life, the "R band" is a legal and well known definition in RF industry. Unfortunately not many of members here knew that.
Why insist on mistakes when it was explained why not use it here ?
Isn't RDBS or Reverse band wording what MAINLY used here from beginning lost meaning ?


> it simply was when I first heard the expression regularly being used by reps. at the Guyanna Space Center for DIRECTV, SS/L, Astrium and Arianespace


I think it would be conclusive to say those people are just not educated in RF terminology and just follow by lead of some [a boss !] who totally cannot say words "reverse band" or "RDBS"


----------



## James Long

I do not believe you or anyone else was confused by the use of the shorthand "R-Band". If it is good enough for people at the Guyanna Space Center it shouldn't be a thread stopper. Does anyone else here think that the term "R-Band" used in the DirecTV forum was referring to a different frequency band than Reverse DBS? Within the context of DirecTV discussion, the term is understood.

Reverse band or RDBS are better terms ... but "R-Band" is also understood within the context of discussion of DirecTV. The point has been made. It is up to individuals to choose whether or not to use the "R-Band" label - with no fear of harassment.

If anyone has a problem with this please send a PM ... this thread is supposed to be for discussing the satellite and the service.


----------



## P Smith

Back to the topic: latest version of FW has internal definition of RDBS part the D14 sat: Net12, TIDs:72-89. While spooling SI tables has none of net12 and 13[103W]


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> Back to the topic: latest version of FW has internal definition of RDBS part the D14 sat: Net12, tpns:72-89. While spooling SI tables has none of net12 and 13[103W]


Oh thanks, good work so far;

So the new Network IDs for Reverse Band will be 12 for 99(cr) and 13 for 103(cr).

Seems logical fitting right in between the Ka Band Net. IDs. Though I don't get the peculiar choice of xpndr numbering 72-89 for 99(cr).

Have the xpndr numbers for 103(cr), or are they the same?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

Same.
I should correct myself, it was TIDs, tpn# are 1...18.

You know, for 103W net15 the TIDs [72...89] are not using, but 99W has a collision for the range of TIDs [72...88] between net 11 and 12, while net 10 is not. Also 103W net13 & 14 has same collision in TIDs [72...79].

Perhaps that's why the new net/TIDs hard-coded in FW but SI tables.


----------



## Gary Toma

The Network and TID combinations are what are unique and crucial. The TIDs in Nets 10, or 11, or 14 or 15 have no bearing on the TIDs in Networks 12 or 13.

Attached is the Network Decoder graphic with the two new Networks for RDBS. In both Nets 12 and 13, TIDs 72 through 89 are associated with TPNs 1 through 18. There are no collisions or conflicts with TIDs because they are in different Networks.


----------



## HoTat2

Thanks Gary and P. Smith for the work so far.

And while I said earlier I naturally would be curious about the other signal parameters for Reverse Band as well. It may be really anticlimactic considering that I just remembered the FCC Schedule S for RB-1 & 2 list only one emission for all xpndrs which I guess should have been expected since they are all CONUS xpndrs.

QPSK, FEC 2/3, Thru-put 38.72 mb/s, same as with the Ka band CONUS HD xpndrs.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

I would add my two cents too: seems to me RDBS LNBF has LOF 17.050 GHz, tpn bandwidth is 36 MHz, with steps 40 MHz (it's including guard gap).

TIDs range would ruin my thoughts about uniqueness of each TID for orbital slot (to my grievance it was that way before the moment).


----------



## CTJon

For those us us who aren't sat genius types. Could one of you that are publish some summary of what is going on with D14 and D15. In dumb folks English please


----------



## inkahauts

You know how we get guide data to see what's on tv? Well there's also a kind of "guide data" for the satelites to the receivers internally that tells the receivers what channels are broadcast on what "channels on the satelites themselves" and from what location in space. 

Well it seems that they have started to transmit that "guide data" if you will for the RDBS portion of the new satelites. That has to happen before they can be used and it's exciting because it's in a new bandwidth never before used by DirecTV. It's kinda like opening up a brand new freeway to your home.


----------



## P Smith

For sure D15 is in sleeping mode - we have no indication of it's activity since it took its orbit slot.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> For sure D15 is in sleeping mode - we have no indication of it's activity since it took its orbit slot.


If the first thing it does is start replacing D10's transponders we wouldn't have any idea, since that does not require any changes we can see.


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> For sure D15 is in sleeping mode - we have no indication of it's activity since it took its orbit slot.


But while I know it's been hotly debated before here previously and certainly don't want to revisit it again. I feel it's only fair to the readership to point out that considering all of D15's "available" Ka band CONUS xpndrs at the moment overlap with D10's and D12's with SW1 still active, we really wouldn't know if D15 is in use right now or not if the TID numbers D15 is using are taken from D10 and 12's.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> But while I know it's been hotly debated before here previously and certainly don't want to revisit it again. I feel it's only fair to the readership to point out that considering all of D15's "available" Ka band CONUS xpndrs at the moment overlap with D10's and D12's with SW1 still active, we really wouldn't know if D15 is in use right now or not if *the TID numbers D15 is using are taken from D10 and 12'*s.


So far, each tpn at one orbital cluster had unique TID. I hope it will continue same way, perhaps some SW1 and D10/12 tpns will be turn off in favor to D15 ...


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> ... perhaps some SW1 and D10/12 tpns will be turn off in favor to D15 ...


I think this is the only way to tell ....

Unless the way they assign TIDs for CONUS beam xpndrs differs from spotbeam ones when the channels exactly overlap, the only sure sign of D15's activity is if SW1 is shutdown in whole or in part and D15's 1-8 lower Ka-hi band xpndrs light up.

Though I am curious about one issue that may bear on this. Does anyone remember how it was ever determined that D4S' CONUS beam payload at 101W was taken over by D9S?

I know it's been a long time ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## KyL416

HoTat2 said:


> the only sure sign of D15's activity is if SW1 is shutdown in whole or in part and D15's 1-8 lower Ka-hi band xpndrs light up.


Or we start seeing a shift of existing channels that will be used to take advantage of the mirroring for Puerto Rico like we did with D14


----------



## HoTat2

KyL416 said:


> Or we start seeing mirrors for Puerto Rico like we did with D14


Good point. ..

Though we'll obviously need subs in PR to help us out of course ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## KyL416

We wouldn't really, it's easy to spot on the map. Two sets of channels pointing to the same NET, TID and VPID with one channel number for USA and another channel number mapped as a "local" for Puerto Rico

i.e. 290 DISeHD on the Conus tab vs 324 DISHD on the LIL tab for Puerto Rico, both point to NET 10, TID 016, VPID 1010. Whenever it happens with D15, we'll have to look for something similar with NET 15


----------



## HoTat2

KyL416 said:


> We wouldn't really, it's easy to spot on the map. Two sets of channels pointing to the same NET, TID and VPID with one channel number for USA and another channel number mapped as a "local" for Puerto Rico
> 
> i.e. 290 DISeHD on the Conus tab vs 324 DISHD on the LIL tab for Puerto Rico, both point to NET 10, TID 016, VPID 1010. Whenever it happens with D15, we'll have to look for something similar with NET 15


Ok, good deal;

Had forgotten all about that duplication for the two different versions in the TPN maps.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## TXD16

Everything now showing mid-90s or above on every active 99(ca) transponder except 16 and 21, which clearly means that every HD channel known to man (and many that aren't yet known) will be available "soon."


----------



## inkahauts

TXD16 said:


> Everything now showing mid-90s or above on every active 99(ca) transponder except 16 and 21, which clearly means that every HD channel known to man (and many that aren't yet known) will be available "soon."


I like your dreaming. .


----------



## VARTV

TXD16 said:


> Everything now showing mid-90s or above on every active 99(ca) transponder except 16 and 21, which clearly means that every HD channel known to man (and many that aren't yet known) will be available "soon."


Same here except getting 93/94 on 17 and 19...


----------



## slice1900

Even if those rest stay at mid 90s and don't drop again like they have in the past, it still begs the question what is up with the N/A transponders as well as 16 and 21.


----------



## tomspeer46

slice1900 said:


> Even if those rest stay at mid 90s and don't drop again like they have in the past, it still begs the question what is up with the N/A transponders as well as 16 and 21.


I believe that TPNs 12,22, and 24 are going to be paired with the TPN just below for 4K channels. That would make the paired transponders have the same frequency, but opposite polarity. Everything the receiver needs to know about Frequency, SR, modulation and encoding is known from the lower TPN, so there doesn't need to be an entry in the NIT for both TPNs of the pair, hence the NA. I've got SS readings of 100 now on TPN 11,13,12,15,17,18,19,20 and 23. zero on 16 and 21. TPNs 9 & 10 seem to be held in reserve. This will be only pseudo bonding, accomplished within the software, as some of the test entries in the TPN map have indicated.

My guess is that they are about to start seriously testing 4K from the satellite.


----------



## slice1900

Even though it is possible for the receiver to infer the modulation etc. without needing a NIT entry, why mark half of the bonded pair as "N/A"? That seems kinda dumb from a troubleshooting perspective. While problems that affect reception of only one transponder are rare, they aren't unheard of. Being unable to see the signal reading on those transponders makes troubleshooting harder for no good reason.


----------



## P Smith

tomspeer46 said:


> ...
> 
> My guess is that they are about to start seriously testing 4K from the satellite.


We shall see that in SI tables, new real bonded 4k channel(s) would support the thesis. Isn't that one pseudo-bonded 4k test channel gone ?


----------



## HoTat2

And also to take the preparatory steps they have already for activating the reverse band, the much advertised home for 4K broadcasting, but then prepare to setup xpndr bonding for 4K testing on the Ka band seems kinda dumb too at this point.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

According to the other site, they are going to begin broadcasts of 4K sometime in early part of 2016, with two full time live channels and 3 VOD channels. Each delivered over its own dedicated transponder, no bonding. Theoretically those channels would be accessible to people with HR34/HR44 and either a 4K RVU or a C61K, though they might only allow them on HR54 to avoid problems when they switch to bonding later.

I'm still very curious what tuner chip the HR54 is using, and if it is capable of DVB-S2X. I haven't seen any indication of tuner chips that can handle a non-standard bonding using DVB-S2, though if that is a capability designed only for Directv they might not advertise it. Still, that would limit Directv's procurement options and as a result drive up their cost so it seems like an odd decision.

I would guess that not everything is in place yet for Directv to use bonded transponders, they not only have to be ready on the receiver side, but they have to have stat muxes capable of this at their broadcast centers and those may not be ready yet either.


----------



## yosoyellobo

What exactly do you mean by two full time live channels. To me that implies sports.


----------



## P Smith

Can we speculate about pseudo-bonding ? If DTV will just use two tuners locked to two tpns, then get two streams (eg doublet bandwidth) with interleaved PES, then combine VPIDs/APIDs to restore one high rate 4k live stream ...


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> According to the other site, they are going to begin broadcasts of 4K sometime in early part of 2016, with two full time live channels and 3 VOD channels. Each delivered over its own dedicated transponder, no bonding. Theoretically those channels would be accessible to people with HR34/HR44 and either a 4K RVU or a C61K, though they might only allow them on HR54 to avoid problems when they switch to bonding later. ...


Read that rumor as well. Seems like a modest but reasonable start to 4K broadcasting service. But then to place it on the Ka band instead of the Rev. band as the rumor goes is strange. Unless the plan is to start out with the Ka and migrate over to the Reverse band as the 4K subscribers with Reverse band capable LNBF upgrades reach a sufficient amount.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## JosephB

HoTat2 said:


> Read that rumor as well. Seems like a modest but reasonable start to 4K broadcasting service. But then to place it on the Ka band instead of the Rev. band as the rumor goes is strange. Unless the plan is to start out with the Ka and migrate over to the Reverse band as the 4K subscribers with Reverse band capable LNBF upgrades reach a sufficient amount.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Starting 4K without R-band, and then eventually switching to requiring R-band is just setting themselves up for a huge headache. Just like when they went from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 for HD, they would be building in fairly quickly obsolescence. With all the money going into this, and the fact they're going to need new set tops anyway, might as well put the new LNB requirement out first.


----------



## inkahauts

We don't know for sure that's accurate and if it is it might be because they won't have production of the reverse band lnbs ready and they want to get this thing going now. Jut a thought


----------



## slice1900

As I said before, I think it makes sense to begin 4K using Ka and unbonded, because it reduces the variables. If they started 4K out on reverse band and bonded, and you run into problems what is the source of the problems? Is it your 4K TV? It is RVU or your C61K? Is it your HR54? Is it your reverse band LNB? Is it a problem with the bonding?

Even if they were ready to roll out reverse band - which they don't seem to be since we haven't seen any of those LNBs publicly released anywhere yet - it would make sense to test everything independently. I think when they begin testing reverse band (which they may already be doing) they won't use 4K, they'll use some regular HD stuff. Again, to minimize the variables and make troubleshooting easier. It seems likely that reverse band will not be restricted to only 4K, otherwise the option for the reverse band LNBs and the 99cr/103cr screens would not be present in the H2x/HR2x firmware.


----------



## latinosat

The other site rumor say maybe audience network and espn .but is a speculation. Peace


----------



## TheRatPatrol

I wish they would focus on first getting us the remaining missing HD channels and then worry 4K.


----------



## P Smith

TheRatPatrol said:


> I wish they would focus on first getting us the remaining missing HD channels and then worry 4K.


Who cares our wishes ? They follow money ..if 4k market is demanding or promising good profit, they will go for it regardless our moaning.


----------



## fleckrj

Is there any 4K content to broadcast, or will it end up being like 3D? Unless the display is bigger than 60 inches, I see no reason for 4K.


----------



## Tom Robertson

TheRatPatrol said:


> I wish they would focus on first getting us the remaining missing HD channels and then worry 4K.


These do not have to be mutually exclusive. 

They gots teams working on aspects of both fronts: technical, legal, marketing, negotiations, etc.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## P Smith

fleckrj said:


> Is there any 4K content to broadcast, or will it end up being like 3D? Unless the display is bigger than 60 inches, I see no reason for 4K.


We have a few threads where you can find answers ... search/look for "NASA UHD", "4k", etc


----------



## slice1900

fleckrj said:


> Is there any 4K content to broadcast, or will it end up being like 3D? Unless the display is bigger than 60 inches, I see no reason for 4K.


Well we can go back and forth debating it, but the market will decide how much demand there is for 4K. The real advantages for it will probably come a few years after the first roll out, when you get HDR and HFR. That's when I'll be interested in 4K. Before those hit there is arguably going to be little noticeable difference with the TVs and viewing distances most people have versus high quality 1080p (i.e. BluRay) but since most of the TV we watch is 720p or 1080i, not 1080p, the difference is a bit wider than the BluRay comparison.

Directv has so much bandwidth available for 4K with their 36 reverse band transponders that even if they dedicate a few of them to stuff like mirroring content from 95* and maybe 119*, that they should be able to have far better quality than they have for HD. By that I mean that their 4K should look a lot closer to 4K Blu Ray quality than their HD looks to HD Blu Ray quality.

If 4K is a wild success and we see 70 or 80 channels they wouldn't be able to maintain such high quality, but if we ever see that many 4K channels (which I really doubt) it would be so far in the future Directv would have shut down their MPEG2 SD on 101 and have a whole bunch of additional bandwidth to play with.


----------



## inkahauts

I really expect 95 to be mirrored so they can end that lease asap.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> I really expect 95 to be mirrored so they can end that lease asap.


They can't end the lease until they upgrade everyone with the 95* dish, which won't be overnight. I still think 119* will be mirrored also, since they will have so much unused space in 99cr/103cr. The reverse band 5LNB dish would only be needed in markets that have SD locals on 119* that aren't carried on 99/103, and for customers who still have D12s.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Tom Robertson said:


> These do not have to be mutually exclusive.
> They gots teams working on aspects of both fronts: technical, legal, marketing, negotiations, etc.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


Well they sure are taking their sweet ole time.


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> They can't end the lease until they upgrade everyone with the 95* dish, which won't be overnight. I still think 119* will be mirrored also, since they will have so much unused space in 99cr/103cr. The reverse band 5LNB dish would only be needed in markets that have SD locals on 119* that aren't carried on 99/103, and for customers who still have D12s.


Yes, but I assume the lease is probably very long term, and wont be up for several years anyway. It would be a process. I just don't expect them to renew it assuming it isn't up in the next couple years...


----------



## Tom Robertson

inkahauts said:


> Yes, but I assume the lease is probably very long term, and wont be up for several years anyway. It would be a process. I just don't expect them to renew it assuming it isn't up in the next couple years...


I thought the lease on 95°W was month to month now. Has it been extended into a longer timeframe? Or am I thinking about the one at 72°W?

Peace,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts

I have no idea I'd just be surprised if they gave short term leases like that at this point. Wonder how or if we can find out.


----------



## Tom Robertson

inkahauts said:


> I have no idea I'd just be surprised if they gave short term leases like that at this point. Wonder how or if we can find out.


How I used to know, on one of them at least, was the filings with the FCC. And partly why I wonder if I'm misremembering which one it was. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## P Smith

P Smith said:


> So far, each tpn at one orbital cluster had unique TID. I hope it will continue same way, perhaps some SW1 and D10/12 tpns will be turn off in favor to D15 ...


They did present new four RB tpns for net12. Damn ! My nice theory of unique TID for each orbital slot is killed!


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> They did present new four RB tpns for net12. Damn ! My nice theory of unique TID for each orbital slot is killed!


Yep ...

Seems if the Network ID number changes then the same TID numbers can be reused.

But then again, shouldn't you have really anticipated this P. Smith? I mean why would DIRECTV have pre-loaded the receiver FW with a TID range of 72-89 for the RB xpndrs and then use different TIDs for them when the SI data actually begins spooling out?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

I reserved my doubt why FW came first, then NIT ... anyway, I'm stand corrected. 
Here is first four of RB tpns:


Code:


12    73     2    L    30000    A3:QPSK    1/2            276,000    17,326,000
12    74     3    R    30000    A3:QPSK    1/2            316,000    17,366,000
12    87    16    L    30000    A3:QPSK    1/2            556,000    17,606,000
12    88    17    R    30000    A3:QPSK    1/2            596,000    17,646,000


----------



## P Smith

Last month it has been found a RB signal from Net 13 (SS=89, CNR=11)

13 81 10 L 30000 A3:QPSK 1/2 1,836,000 17,486,000
Counting by IF and Freqs, I would say RB LNBF has two RB LOFs: 17.05 GHz [99W] and 15.65 GHz [103W]


----------



## slice1900

Entropic has a patent for a reverse band LNB with a single LO frequency that uses a series of frequency divisions and network of multiple mixers to use that single LO frequency to place everything where it belongs in Directv's stack plan. It doesn't end up at exactly the same frequencies, for example IIRC Ka lo is at an IF of 233 MHz, reverse band at 277 etc. In an LNB that uses Maxlinear's DSWM chip that digitizes the whole range from 200 to 2350 MHz or so, none of this matters - it just needs the transponders in the range to be digitized and software can hide those small "errors".

I have no evidence that's what the reverse band 3DR/5DR LNB is doing, and it seems like a lot of hassle just to avoid a few DROs but there must be some reason they thought about this. If someone ever tears one open and takes pictures of the inside, maybe we can see if it has one DRO or four.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> Last month it has been found a RB signal from Net 13 (SS=89, CNR=11)
> 
> 13 81 10 L 30000 A3:QPSK 1/2 1,836,000 17,486,000
> Counting by IF and Freqs, I would say RB LNBF has two RB LOFs: 17.05 GHz [99W] and 15.65 GHz [103W]


It is interesting that it is using FEC 1/2 but only reaches a CNR of 11. It seems to be broadcasting at about 25% the power that Ka transponders are broadcast at. If it was 4x the power using FEC 2/3, it would be 14.9 CNR. If they plan to put three 30 Mbps 4K channels in a pair of reverse band transponders, they'd need FEC 3/4, which costs just under one db compared to 2/3.


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> Entropic has a patent for a reverse band LNB with a single LO frequency that uses a series of frequency divisions and network of multiple mixers to use that single LO frequency to place everything where it belongs in Directv's stack plan. It doesn't end up at exactly the same frequencies, for example IIRC Ka lo is at an IF of 233 MHz, reverse band at 277 etc. In an LNB that uses Maxlinear's DSWM chip that digitizes the whole range from 200 to 2350 MHz or so, none of this matters - it just needs the transponders in the range to be digitized and software can hide those small "errors".
> 
> I have no evidence that's what the reverse band 3DR/5DR LNB is doing, and it seems like a lot of hassle just to avoid a few DROs but there must be some reason they thought about this. *If someone ever tears one open and takes pictures of the inside, maybe we can see if it has one DRO or four.*


I would be glad to do the dissection, if someone (rich?) will pay for them (perhaps broken ? it would be cheaper)


----------

