# AMC-14 failed to reach the planned orbit



## P Smith

Unfortunately yes.


> ILS DECLARES PROTON LAUNCH ANOMALY
> 
> BAIKONUR COSMODROME, Kazakhstan, March 14, 2008 - Khrunichev and International Launch Services regret to announce an anomaly during today's Proton mission with the AMC-14 satellite.
> 
> The Proton Breeze M rocket lifted off at 5:18 a.m. today local time from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, carrying the AMC-14 satellite for SES AMERICOM and its customer, EchoStar Corporation. Preliminary flight information indicates that the anomaly occurred during the second burn of the Breeze M upper stage. The satellite failed to reach the planned orbit. *The satellite was built by Lockheed Martin*.
> 
> A Russian State Commission has begun the process of determining the reasons for the anomaly. ILS will release details when data become available. In parallel with the State Commission, ILS will form its own Failure Review Oversight Board. The FROB will review the commission's final report and corrective action plan, in accord with U.S. and Russian government export control regulations.
> 
> ILS remains committed to providing reliable, timely launch services for all its customers. To this end, ILS will work diligently with its partner Khrunichev to return Proton to flight as soon as possible.


----------



## BNUMM

"Failure Review Board". Those words do not sound encouraging.


----------



## Suomi

P Smith said:


> Well, if you could drive Atlantis up there and pickup the sat from LEO before it fall off ...


Seriously. I wonder what this means for Dish at this point.


----------



## skyviewmark1

Suomi said:


> Seriously. I wonder what this means for Dish at this point.


LOST Customers and lost revenue.. Plain and simple. No one cares why.. They just want to watch TV


----------



## yihaa75

Yup, its not the cost of the satellite as I bet the launch is insured, but the lost time and revenue that stems from that.

But hey, what can you expect from using russian services for launch. Cheap means risk. The cheaper you go, the more risk. Hey Echo, I'll launch your sats for only a mill.

they played their card and lost.

hey, how many echo sats have been succesful. it seems a lot have failed. I think they have to bathe themselves in holy water or something like that.

Only failure after failure.


----------



## SParker

I hope Charlie insured this one. I remember one time he took a gamble and didn't insure a launch.. I'm a DIRECTV sub now but this makes me feel sick to my stomach.


----------



## janko

The Proton Breeze M rocket lifted off at 5:18 a.m. today local time from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, carrying the AMC-14 satellite for SES AMERICOM and its customer, EchoStar Corporation. Preliminary flight information indicates that the anomaly occurred during the second burn of the Breeze M upper stage. The satellite failed to reach the planned orbit.


----------



## bartendress

janko said:


> The Proton Breeze M rocket lifted off at 5:18 a.m. today local time from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, carrying the AMC-14 satellite for SES AMERICOM and its customer, EchoStar Corporation. Preliminary flight information indicates that the anomaly occurred during the second burn of the Breeze M upper stage. The satellite failed to reach the planned orbit.


A) Welcome to DBStalk.com

2) This makes me sick to my stomach

I wonder how much of the confidence we saw on this week's Charlie Chat was based upon a successful AMC-14 orbit insertion... ... ...


----------



## tvspy

OUCH !


----------



## Tom Robertson

Please continue your discussion relating to AMC-14, its failure, and ramifications for dish Network. 

My condolences to the dish Network family.
Tom


----------



## P Smith

Seems to me the failure has been preprogrammed 
http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/Ils_030606.html


----------



## bartendress

P Smith said:


> Seems to me the failure has been preprogrammed
> http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/Ils_030606.html


"preprogrammed"?

What in that article leads you to believe that AMC-14 was, for lack of a better term, scuttled... ... ... ???


----------



## P Smith

I expect you'll read it ... Well, this "The satellite was placed into a useless orbit late Feb. 28 when the Proton vehicle's Breeze M upper stage shut down early during its second ignition. "


----------



## HobbyTalk

Yeah, it is sad to se it happen. Was looking forward to the new stuff that could have been possible if it really is lost as it seems. Just been doing a lot of reading lately on sat. launches, none of the platforms seem to have a very good record.


----------



## Tom Robertson

I think P Smith is correct in saying that at some point the computers detected an out of sync parameter somewhere in the system so at the second burn the "safe failure program" kicked in.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## drmckenzie

By the way -- that quoted article about the launch failure is from 2006 -- not this year....


----------



## Stewart Vernon

skyviewmark1 said:


> LOST Customers and lost revenue.. Plain and simple. No one cares why.. They just want to watch TV


Maybe, maybe not. I keep asking where the mass exodus of customers is... and no one can answer. Similarly, there has been no mass exodus from cable nor from DirecTV when they were behind and waiting for new launches.

The "sky is falling" posts have been all over the forums for several years now, and keep switching from company to company whenever the wind shifts.

This is absolutely a setback for Dish, no question about that... but since they were going to lease this one, Dish at least isn't out the money for building the satellite. Meanwhile, part of the reason Dish has no new sats up lately is because of other satellite launch companies' problems late last year that caused both Dish and DirecTV delays of scheduled launches.


----------



## skyviewmark1

The mass exodus isn't going to happen right away. And may not happen if Charlie can pull a rabbit out of his hat. But he better start looking for that rabbit.. OR a new hat


----------



## James Long

_"The satellite failed to reach the planned orbit."_ :eek2: :nono2:

Time for plan B.


----------



## skyviewmark1

Do we have a Plan B?


----------



## Tom Robertson

skyviewmark1 said:


> Do we have a Plan B?


My bosses ALWAYS told me to have a Plan B (with some consideration for Plan C). I have to believe in this industry Plan B is just as always known. 

In fact, lots of companies will be working on Plan B given that the review board will delay several launches I expect.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

drmckenzie said:


> By the way -- that quoted article about the launch failure is from 2006 -- not this year....


Yes, it was P Smith's example of how a "programmed safe failure" is defined in their programming, not to describe exactly AMC-14's failure. We'll see more updates on that soon, I'm sure.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## bartendress

P Smith said:


> I expect you'll read it ... Well, this "The satellite was placed into a useless orbit late Feb. 28 when the Proton vehicle's Breeze M upper stage shut down early during its second ignition. "


I'm sorry.

There's a difference between 'preprogrammed', as in... designed to fail... and 'aborted', as in... the vehicle did not perform as planned, so a stage was terminated early to somehow preserve the platform.

Words, and how you use them, do mean things.


----------



## phrelin

With regard to the earlier satellite launch failures being referenced as the reason we have less HD, I wrote:


phrelin said:


> Unfortunately, my point has been around launch risks. This is a risky business and a Plan B is always prudent. Plan B for HD _appeared_ either to not exist or to be TBS and TNT. IMHO a crappy Plan B. I assume the seven channels languishing in uplinks is Plan C, so what's Plan D should one or more of the scheduled launches fail? Dump Voom?


Interestingly, based on a myriad of posts regarding things actually happening, it appears that Plan D is moving satellites around and reorganizing transponders. It could work to bring some more nationals on and some more locals on, couldn't it guys?:grin:

Edit: Oh, and dump Voom or at least most of the Voom channels. And get cracking on that "TV Shows" section of the DishONline thing.


----------



## MSoper72

If I have been reading this forum correctly. Yes, it may have failed, but if the upper stage is still connected to the satellite. Once they figure out the problem. I'm not sure, but I have this notion it can be reignited and the satellite should be placed in its proper location.


----------



## csgo

MSoper72 said:


> If I have been reading this forum correctly. Yes, it may have failed, but if the upper stage is still connected to the satellite. Once they figure out the problem. I'm not sure, but I have this notion it can be reignited and the satellite should be placed in its proper location.


The below are the latest quotes from AFP, but they sound like very wishful thinking to me:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iD7QUNjuCWD6d3hdE6S84S5__1bg

"Russian space officials were quoted by Russian news agencies as saying the satellite could use its own engines to reach the required orbit.

"The communications satellite has not been destroyed and could be used in a lower orbit or go into a higher orbit using its engines," an unnamed official from Russia's state space agency Roskosmos was quoted by RIA Novosti as saying.

Another Russian space official told Interfax: "Specialists can try and use the satellite's own engines to raise it into a higher orbit. But that would reduce the 15-year lifetime of the satellite.""


----------



## AntAltMike

If it stays in a lower, eliptical orbit, DISH will have to start using X-Y tracking reception dishes.


----------



## Tom Robertson

It is conceivable that AMC-14's engines might be able to lift it to a high enough orbit, perhaps slowly and would most definitely shorten the useful life before it would need to be lifted even higher to a death orbit.

If it could last 3-5 years that way, that would give SES enough time to get a replacement launched and in place.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## bobkvjr

Proton rocket suffers launch failure
BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: March 15, 2008

The Breeze M deployed the spacecraft shortly after the early engine shutdown, and SES AMERICOM will now be faced with making future plans for the stranded satellite, Roscosmos said.

AMC 14 could reach its target orbit if there is enough space fuel on-board, or officials could elect to use a dramatic lunar flyby to use the moon's gravity to slingshot the craft into geosynchronous orbit. Such a maneuver succeeded in 1998 for AsiaSat 3, another satellite victim of a Proton failure.

Owners of other communications birds left in low orbits have considered similar measures, but opted instead to de-orbit their satellites for insurance purposes.

http://spaceflightnow.com/proton/amc14/


----------



## James Long

According it the DISH Network Corp 2007 Annual Report:
(Remembering that annual reports often do not look on the bright side.)


> DISCLOSURE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
> ...
> The risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the following:
> ...
> · we currently do not have commercial insurance covering losses incurred from the failure of satellite launches and/or in-orbit satellites we own or lease from EchoStar;


Why?


> We currently have no commercial insurance coverage on the satellites we own.
> 
> We do not use commercial insurance to mitigate the potential financial impact of in-orbit failures because we believe that the cost of insurance premiums is uneconomical relative to the risk of satellite failure. We believe we generally have in-orbit satellite capacity sufficient to recover, in a relatively short time frame, transmission of most of our critical programming in the event one of our in-orbit satellites fails. We could not, however, recover certain local markets, international and other niche programming. Further, programming continuity cannot be assured in the event of multiple satellite losses.


Of course, this is an SES-Americom satellite, not an Echostar or DISH Network satellite. Hopefully SES has it insured (so they can afford to replace it) ... and more importantly ... hopefully it has enough 'space fuel' to get into a usable orbit. Getting SOME use out of it is better than none.

Speculation on Plan B: move the in-orbit spare E6 to 61.5° instead of 77° ... but if I were DISH I would not do that until E-11 was safely in orbit.

It has been a really bad couple of years for satellite launches. Now more than ever I expect insurance costs to be through the roof. (Remembering that insurance companies want to make money ... they are betting that they don't have to pay out.)


----------



## Spoonser

bobkvjr said:


> Owners of other communications birds left in low orbits have considered similar measures, but opted instead to de-orbit their satellites for insurance purposes.


It seems to me that the insurance company should have the policy structured so that they could pro-rate the lost life-span of the satellite. That way operators have an incentive to keep it aloft and make use of it, and the insurance company would have a lower payout.

Satellite customers should also like this option because it would give them more flexibility, which could be good for their business plan (e.g. as someone pointed out, if they could get the thing up there, Dish could have 5 years to install a replacement).

Of course when Dish is just leasing it, maybe the equation is different. In the end there are probably reasons things are not done this way.


----------



## James Long

The satellite is SES' problem ... although loss of use falls on DISH Network / Echostar.

It took several years for EchoStar to get their insurance pay out for E4 (which failed to operate properly in orbit) - and as the Annual Reports suggests ... they paid more in premiums than they collected (the insurance companies won -- like in Vegas -- the house always wins).

Total loss would mean total insurance payment (if launch is insured). If it only a partial loss I expect the insurance company would not want to pay the total amount. Self-insured is the best encouragement to the owner to do their best to get the satellite to a usable orbit and get some use out of it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

bartendress said:


> "preprogrammed"?
> 
> What in that article leads you to believe that AMC-14 was, for lack of a better term, scuttled... ... ... ???


The correct word should have probably been "trend".


----------



## neljtorres

SEC got screwed up! But Dish has a lot of plans with this new bird, that's a shame!


----------



## jacmyoung

This is indeed a sad moment for us, I speak as an ex-DISHer and a current DirecTVer. I was hoping DISH can roll out more HD and let the competition benefit all of us HD subs.

If I understand it correctly, if this bird was insured by SES, the likely action will be to de-orbit it to collect the insurance money. If not they may risk a much shortened life and try to use the on-board engine and/or mother nature to get it into orbit.

Why am I feeling DISH's no-insurance policy suddenly makes a lot of sense?


----------



## jclewter79

How far away from planned orbit are we talking?


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Tom Robertson said:


> It is conceivable that AMC-14's engines might be able to lift it to a high enough orbit, perhaps slowly and would most definitely shorten the useful life before it would need to be lifted even higher to a death orbit.
> 
> If it could last 3-5 years that way, that would give SES enough time to get a replacement launched and in place.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Shorten lifespan, is better then no lifespan


----------



## Bill R

Tom Robertson said:


> It is conceivable that AMC-14's engines might be able to lift it to a high enough orbit?
> 
> Tom


No, it is now "space junk" and a very sad day for the Echostar family.


----------



## n3ntj

What was AMC-14 destined to provide for E*? HD Locals? National HD programming? Both?


----------



## morgantown

Refering to a much earlier comment about E* taking the "cheap route" and using the Russian launch services... That is exactly who DirecTV used for the last launch. Their are only so many launce facilities and the schedule typically dictates who is used.

As far as the insurance. Seems to me having "in-orbit" insurance and "launch" insurance would be two different items. I can see not insuring once the bird is in the pre-planned orbit. However this bird is no where near where it was supposed to be. I'd find it hard to believe E* does not insure launches.

Just my $0.02 Sad day for E*.


----------



## jclewter79

Let's wait till we hear an official "plan b" before we call it space junk. If this sat could be made operational for 3-5 years that would be long enough to get something else up. Since it is a leased bird I am sure the final call will be made by the owners, not echostar but, maybe something can be agreed upon.


----------



## MrDogDad

jclewter79 said:


> How far away from planned orbit are we talking?


According to Spaceflightnow.com, the shortened second burn left the spacecraft 5000 miles lower than planned. A third burn would have circularized the orbit and put it close to it's final orbit. The fact that the spacecraft separated from the upper stage is really bad news, since the upper stage is needed to get into the correct orbit.

There is a possibility that the spacecraft could still be maneuvered into the correct orbit using it's thrusters (and a possible Lunar gravity assist), but they are not designed for that much use. It will take a long time (Months) to get the bird into place and it will have a shorter lifespan due to fuel use. It will also cost a lot for the tracking network resources to maintain contact during such a maneuver. It may be more cost effective for SES to deorbit


----------



## jacmyoung

n3ntj said:


> What was AMC-14 destined to provide for E*? HD Locals? National HD programming? Both?


I have no idea but since it was going to 61.5 slot, it has limited impact to the national service.

Now that I think about it, it may not be that a bad thing. The 61.5 plan is not good for the west coast anyway, maybe DISH will come up with something that can really offer true "national HD programming" after this failure.


----------



## jpl

yihaa75 said:


> Yup, its not the cost of the satellite as I bet the launch is insured, but the lost time and revenue that stems from that.
> 
> But hey, what can you expect from using russian services for launch. Cheap means risk. The cheaper you go, the more risk. Hey Echo, I'll launch your sats for only a mill.
> 
> they played their card and lost.
> 
> hey, how many echo sats have been succesful. it seems a lot have failed. I think they have to bathe themselves in holy water or something like that.
> 
> Only failure after failure.


Actually, ILS (International Launch Service) is a joint US- Russian venture. The launch pad may be in a former Soviet republic, but the service itself is not meant to be an on-the-cheap alternative. Even the rocket itself, the Proton, isn't some space version of the Yugo. It's based off a former Soviet rocket design, that's successfully launched Cosmonauts into space. Although this may cause the companies involved to look at the arrangement.


----------



## LarryFlowers

My sympathies to the Dish Network customers.

The saddest part of this story is that thanks to those worthless idiots in Washington, the United States has become a second class citizen in space. The lack of a proper medium to heavy lift program has nearly crippled our own efforts.

Why in anyone's wildest imagination should DirecTV or Dish have to go to Russia to put a payload into orbit? Why does the (almost non-existent) Atlas 5 use a Russian built main engine? Does anyone not see that something is distinctly out of whack when you realize that in 2 years the International Space Station will be dependent on Russian Boosters to be supplied because the Shuttle (another fine example of technology designed by politicians) will be out of service.

Might as well just throw in the towel and turn space over to the Chinese, Japanese, Russians and the French. Their governments cant be any bigger collection of idiots than ours.:nono2:


----------



## generalpatton78

Well this blows for all of us D* subs as well. Now cable companies have about 14 million less reasons to go HD. As far as cutting Voom off to free up space. I don't think they can do that since that is a Voom Sat they are using right now for HD. I would think the orginal lease or sale agreement would have had depended allot on offering the Voom channels to Dish subs. 

It's certainly not been a good time for E* recently. First they loose to Tivo and now they may have lost a SAT.


----------



## syphix

Does DirecTV's launch on Monday of D11 use a similar Proton rocket?


----------



## harsh

SParker said:


> I hope Charlie insured this one.


As AMC-14 is an SES Americom satellite, it would be their responsibility to insure it. The insurance that Charlie could buy would be to have a backup plan in the wings.


----------



## jpl

LarryFlowers said:


> My sympathies to the Dish Network customers.
> 
> The saddest part of this story is that thanks to those worthless idiots in Washington, the United States has become a second class citizen in space. The lack of a proper medium to heavy lift program has nearly crippled our own efforts.
> 
> Why in anyone's wildest imagination should DirecTV or Dish have to go to Russia to put a payload into orbit? Why does the (almost non-existent) Atlas 5 use a Russian built main engine? Does anyone not see that something is distinctly out of whack when you realize that in 2 years the International Space Station will be dependent on Russian Boosters to be supplied because the Shuttle (another fine example of technology designed by politicians) will be out of service.
> 
> Might as well just throw in the towel and turn space over to the Chinese, Japanese, Russians and the French. Their governments cant be any bigger collection of idiots than ours.:nono2:


With all due respect - what in the world are you talking about? We don't have heavy lift capabilities? What the hell is the Titan IV then? And where are you getting your information about the moth-balling of the Space Shuttle fleet? I agree that the scrubbing of the Venture Star program (designed to be the replacement for the shuttle) was a short-sighted idea, but the idea that they're going to stop shuttle launches in 2 years - please provide some information on that.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

generalpatton78 said:


> Well this blows for all of us D* subs as well. Now cable companies have about 14 million less reasons to go HD.


You mean content providers, not cable companies...

But I don't think that is the case.

Sure 14 million possible customers on one carrier...
However, those customers have an option... if they can get Dish... most can get DirecTV.... or possibly a land-line option.

And with Verizon, Comcast, Timewarner.... still gunning after DirecTV...
The HD will still be there... it is the "next" thing... and plans won't just "stop" because one carrier had an anomoly... which at this time we don't know the extent over the impact (time wise).


----------



## harsh

syphix said:


> Does DirecTV's launch on Monday of D11 use a similar Proton rocket?


No.

It is important to note that the failure was with the Briz-M portion of the launch vehicle in the second of two burns. The Proton portion of the launcher that shares parts with the Zenit units performed "flawlessly".

Before you get too comfortable, you should know that an engine that they have in common failed in the worst way in October 2007 at Baikonur when the rocket crashed into the ground down range.


----------



## LarryFlowers

jpl said:


> With all due respect - what in the world are you talking about? We don't have heavy lift capabilities? What the hell is the Titan IV then? And where are you getting your information about the moth-balling of the Space Shuttle fleet? I agree that the scrubbing of the Venture Star program (designed to be the replacement for the shuttle) was a short-sighted idea, but the idea that they're going to stop shuttle launches in 2 years - please provide some information on that.


Shuttle retirement scheduled for 2010 has been all over the news here's an example: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050512_rtf_shuttle.html

And for something even more current http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23397408

As for the Titan IV... It was reitred in 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_IV

I know my Space Program and the abuse it has received at the hands of Congress.


----------



## jpl

LarryFlowers said:


> Shuttle retirement scheduled for 2010 has been all over the news here's an example: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050512_rtf_shuttle.html
> 
> As for the Titan IV... It was reitred in 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_IV
> 
> I know my Space Program and the abuse it has received at the hands of Congress.


My apologies, then. I didn't realize about either program (the shuttle or the titan - I though the titan was still operational - as several of the titan iv b - the heavy lift version - were ordered as recently, I believe, as 2001).


----------



## HIPAR

I would like to remind anyone concerned about a lack of heavy lift capacity here in the US that the Delta IV Heavy has flown successfully and is capable of launching huge satellites.










--- CHAS


----------



## jpl

HIPAR said:


> I would like to remind anyone concerned about a lack of heavy lift capacity here in the US that the Delta IV Heavy has flown successfully and is capable of launching huge satellites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- CHAS


You're correct - I was just going to post on that:

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

They have a heavy lift capability. I got my rocket names mixed up - for some reason I always associate the Titan as the latest generation - not sure why.


----------



## DirecTV-Sub

jacmyoung said:


> This is indeed a sad moment for us, I speak as an ex-DISHer and a current DirecTVer. I was hoping DISH can roll out more HD and let the competition benefit all of us HD subs.


My sentiments exactly.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

On the insurance angle... Insurance is really very much like gambling. Insurance companies gamble that you will be healthy (not crash the car, or the house isn't destroyed, or the satellite is fine, etc. etc.) while you are essentially gambling that you will have something major happen.

From the insured perspective, you are taking a negative (sometimes realistic) approach to your future when you buy insurance... because it means you believe you will have need for the insurance payment and you believe you will pay less in premiums than you will need to pay.

The average young person, for example, will pay premiums for years on health insurance that is essentially wasted... however if he waited until he was 40 to get insurance for the first time then the premiums might start higher. A good driver is always wasting money if he never has an accident that is his fault. Home insurance is similarly wasted if your house lasts 40 years without problems.

The catch is, you never know... so for many prospects it is worth the risk to get insurance and hedge your bets. On the flip side, insurance companies are in it for profit so they wouldn't be providing insurance if they didn't overall make more than they lose.

Take Katrina victims for the flip side... Insurance companies tried not to pay out any more than they were forced to... and premiums have shot up for anyone in that area who wanted to stay around a rebuild.

Many rich people don't have insurance... they keep money set aside for emergencies.. and save the premiums. So this makes sense for Dish. If they have more successful launches than failures, then on average insurance may be a very bad bet for them. IF they had more failures than success, then their insurance premiums would go up each time they collected so it ultimately may not even make sense then.


----------



## MrDogDad

LarryFlowers said:


> My sympathies to the Dish Network customers.
> 
> The saddest part of this story is that thanks to those worthless idiots in Washington, the United States has become a second class citizen in space. The lack of a proper medium to heavy lift program has nearly crippled our own efforts.
> 
> Why in anyone's wildest imagination should DirecTV or Dish have to go to Russia to put a payload into orbit? Why does the (almost non-existent) Atlas 5 use a Russian built main engine? Does anyone not see that something is distinctly out of whack when you realize that in 2 years the International Space Station will be dependent on Russian Boosters to be supplied because the Shuttle (another fine example of technology designed by politicians) will be out of service.
> 
> Might as well just throw in the towel and turn space over to the Chinese, Japanese, Russians and the French. Their governments cant be any bigger collection of idiots than ours.:nono2:


The US government has been out of the commercial launch business for years. 
The Boeing Delta IV heavy can lift over 28,000 lbs into geosynchronous transfer orbit. All you have to do is pay for it.
Satellite operators can buy launch services from a number of companies in several countries. All of them have had failures. It all boils down to cost vs risk.


----------



## generalpatton78

Earl Bonovich said:


> You mean content providers, not cable companies...


I meant Cable Channel companies like Comedy Central ect.



Earl Bonovich said:


> Sure 14 million possible customers on one carrier...
> However, those customers have an option... if they can get Dish... most can get DirecTV.... or possibly a land-line option.


14 million is 14 million and not having them as a possible revenue source makes the conversion to HD a harder sell. Momentum has been building for channels to go HD and this SAT would have only helped.


Earl Bonovich said:


> And with Verizon, Comcast, Timewarner.... still gunning after DirecTV...
> The HD will still be there... it is the "next" thing... and plans won't just "stop" because one carrier had an anomoly... which at this time we don't know the extent over the impact (time wise).


I'm not acting like HD is dead or something, but surely you can agree that competion is good. Having another NATIONAL provider offering something close to D* helps with prices for consumers. We have already seen less offers to customers from D* concerning DVR price breaks. Also Cable channels like TBS, CSTV, MTVHD, VH1HD sit there with no actual HD because in whatever cost benefit ratio they use it's not worth the cost yet. This failue prolongs that to some degree.


----------



## LarryFlowers

HIPAR said:


> I would like to remind anyone concerned about a lack of heavy lift capacity here in the US that the Delta IV Heavy has flown successfully and is capable of launching huge satellites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- CHAS


Trus, but last I heard The Delta IV was not being offered by Boeing for commercial launches due to high costs. There were some rumblings about returning to commercial launches a couple of years back but so far its launches have been nothing but weather, military communication and NRO classified launches.

There are currently no commercial launches in their schedule, with nothing thru the end of 2009 except Navigation Satellite and classified NRO missions.


----------



## eatonjb

csgo said:


> The below are the latest quotes from AFP, but they sound like very wishful thinking to me:
> 
> http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iD7QUNjuCWD6d3hdE6S84S5__1bg
> 
> "Russian space officials were quoted by Russian news agencies as saying the satellite could use its own engines to reach the required orbit.
> 
> "The communications satellite has not been destroyed and could be used in a lower orbit or go into a higher orbit using its engines," an unnamed official from Russia's state space agency Roskosmos was quoted by RIA Novosti as saying.
> 
> Another Russian space official told Interfax: "Specialists can try and use the satellite's own engines to raise it into a higher orbit. But that would reduce the 15-year lifetime of the satellite.""


you know, with this being said.. I have an idea.. since I am sure they are insured. and i know to make a new sat would take about 2 years.

lets use the sats own engines to get it working, get the insurance to build a new sat, thow that one up in about 5 years, ..

Psht.... DONE.. no loss!!

lets face it a new sat is going up, use this one for what we can.. hell.. is there a way to refule these things? in about 5 years, have NASA do it! (just a joke guys) don't they have a service station up there somewhere?


----------



## eatonjb

on a serious note, NASA or the US Goverment in any way is not going to help dish, they have no intrest in small stuff like that, and Dish is not going to fork out the money to have the US gov do any work to help them. 

I don't even see any of the US agency's giving a loan.. we are TV here, not national security.


----------



## generalpatton78

eatonjb said:


> on a serious note, NASA or the US Goverment in any way is not going to help dish, they have no intrest in small stuff like that, and Dish is not going to fork out the money to have the US gov do any work to help them.
> 
> I don't even see any of the US agency's giving a loan.. we are TV here, not national security.


If only the Sat was a lending bank like Bear. Then the government could say we should bail them out for the economy.


----------



## TulsaOK

jpl said:


> ...but the idea that they're going to stop shuttle launches in 2 years - please provide some information on that.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8960158/

"NASA now plans to retire its shuttle fleet in 2010 or earlier..."


----------



## samchecker

phrelin said:


> With regard to the earlier satellite launch failures being referenced as the reason we have less HD, I wrote:
> Interestingly, based on a myriad of posts regarding things actually happening, it appears that Plan D is moving satellites around and reorganizing transponders. It could work to bring some more nationals on and some more locals on, couldn't it guys?:grin:
> 
> Edit: Oh, and dump Voom or at least most of the Voom channels. And get cracking on that "TV Shows" section of the DishONline thing.


I've debated jumping in on the "dump VOOM" bandwagon for quite some time, but after over a year on Dish, I have to concur. They're cool-looking channels, but the novelty wears off after a while and you kinda want *real* channels....especially if dumping VOOM meant we'd finally get SciFi, Bravo, AMC, IFC, etc. in HD.

That's bad news about the satellite launch, but there are options...unfortunately for Dish, I'll have options in a few months that won't involve buying out a contract. Hope they get their stuff together by then.


----------



## jacmyoung

eatonjb said:


> you know, with this being said.. I have an idea.. since I am sure they are insured. and i know to make a new sat would take about 2 years.
> 
> lets use the sats own engines to get it working, get the insurance to build a new sat, thow that one up in about 5 years, ..
> 
> Psht.... DONE.. no loss!!
> 
> lets face it a new sat is going up, use this one for what we can.. hell.. is there a way to refule these things? in about 5 years, have NASA do it! (just a joke guys) don't they have a service station up there somewhere?


I know you said so jokingly, but in this case the insurance actually is a bad thing. To ensure full coverage, it may be in the interest of SES to write it off. If they try hard to bring it alive (if even possible), it will complicate the insurance claim, which was exatcly what happened to DISH E4.

What I said in this case, no insurance could be a good thing, SES will have nothing to lose to gamble it and see if the bird can be put in orbit even if it means its lifespan will be severely impacted.


----------



## eatonjb

well , I am pretty sure if the sat can go into use , but is nocked down a lifespan of half, the insurance, would take care of some of it, they could sit on that money in a few years, build something better, put that one up, and they would be ahead of the times. Is it possable to pick the thing up and bring it back or somethig?


----------



## krisztoforo

So I'm reading this on the spaceflightnow.com page:
"AMC 14 could reach its target orbit if there is enough space fuel on-board, or officials could elect to use a dramatic lunar flyby to use the moon's gravity to slingshot the craft into geosynchronous orbit. Such a maneuver succeeded in 1998 for AsiaSat 3, another satellite victim of a Proton failure."

Can anyone explain to me how they can do this? (the lunar fly-by) This is the first time I've heard about such a thing. Does this mean they would break the sat out of Earth orbit?? Wouldn't that require a huge amount of fuel?


----------



## eatonjb

use movement and momentum to get things started.. remember there is no resistance in space like air is here


----------



## dms1

eatonjb said:


> Is it possable to pick the thing up and bring it back or somethig?


No. They haven't stated what the perigee of the current orbit is, but it is almost certainly too high to be recoverable, even if money wasn't an object. Remember all the debate about risking going high enough to service the Hubble Space Telescope and that is only at a height of 366 miles. They can bring the satellite down using its on-board AKM but it doesn't have any heat shields so it would just burn up on re-entry.


----------



## jacmyoung

eatonjb said:


> well , I am pretty sure if the sat can go into use , but is nocked down a lifespan of half, the insurance, would take care of some of it, they could sit on that money in a few years, build something better, put that one up, and they would be ahead of the times. Is it possable to pick the thing up and bring it back or somethig?


The problem as I said, is if SES manages to get half of life out of it, it will complicate the insurance claim. The launch is covered by some insurance separate from service, if the bird in the end becomes a working bird, regardless its lifespan, the launch insurance can say look it is working, not a launch failure.

Of course the service insurance can say hey the short lifespan as a result of positioning it to the correct orbit is not covered under our clause.


----------



## Badger

syphix said:


> Does DirecTV's launch on Monday of D11 use a similar Proton rocket?


D10 which went up without a flaw last summer was on a proton but D11 which is scheduled to go up Monday is being launched by sealaunch. D12 is built and presently stored as a backup/future bird.


----------



## eatonjb

i guess thats all to be determined by the wording in the insurance contract.


----------



## jacmyoung

Badger said:


> D10 which went up without a flaw last summer was on a proton but D11 which is scheduled to go up Monday is being launched by sealaunch. D12 is built and presently stored as a backup/future bird.


D10 is not without its flaws, the HD LIL functions had some anomaly too.


----------



## liverpool

They could always sell it to the US missile defence system so they could practice shooting down a satellite again.


----------



## dms1

jacmyoung said:


> D10 is not without its flaws, the HD LIL functions had some anomaly too.


That's a satellite problem though, not a launch failure. Providing the payload is put into the specified geostationary transfer orbit then the launch is deemed successful, even though the satellite might be useless because someone forgot to put the batteries in for example.


----------



## Badger

jacmyoung said:


> D10 is not without its flaws, the HD LIL functions had some anomaly too.


True, but D10 did put D* upfront as far as HD! D11 will take care of the rest of the LIL's + more HD and D12 is built and stored on standby. D* planned ahead and also owns it's new satellites. I guess we'll find out what E*'s contingincy plan is (maybe?).


----------



## Badger

syphix said:


> Does DirecTV's launch on Monday of D11 use a similar Proton rocket?


D10 which went up without a flaw last summer was on a proton but D11 which is scheduled to go up Monday is being launched by sealaunch. D12 is built and presently stored as a backup/future bird.


----------



## bairda

Can some of the experts here give us casual forum members a short overview of what this means to the future of Dish HD. This is assuming that they have to "deorbit" the satellite and cannot send up another bird anytime soon (next year or so).

Specifically I would like an opinion on the following:
-Will Dish be able to add the extra channels that it needs to compete with Directs HD lead in the immediate future (next 3-4 months) as they had stated in their chats?
-Will this impact Dish's existing lineup in the near term?
-Would this make you start leaning toward a switch to Direct? I am looking for personal opinions here.

This sounds like very, very, bad news for those of us who have stuck with Dish on the hope and promise that there would be more HD this year. If there is not a competitive lineup to Direct this year due to this then I think I will make the jump. That would be a contract break and loosing the DVR (622) that I love (and all the recordings on my external USB drive!), but this waiting game has got to end.

I am really looking for a ray of hope as I don't want to leave Dish!

Thanks,
-Alex-


----------



## Tom Robertson

<moderator note>
Please do not bring politics of any country into this discussion. Reporting of budget numbers is ok--if done without extra commentary.

Thanks for understanding,
Tom


----------



## skyviewmark1

bairda said:


> Can some of the experts here give us casual forum members a short overview of what this means to the future of Dish HD. This is assuming that they have to "deorbit" the satellite and cannot send up another bird anytime soon (next year or so).
> 
> Specifically I would like an opinion on the following:
> -Will Dish be able to add the extra channels that it needs to compete with Directs HD lead in the immediate future (next 3-4 months) as they had stated in their chats?
> -Will this impact Dish's existing lineup in the near term?
> -Would this make you start leaning toward a switch to Direct? I am looking for personal opinions here.
> 
> This sounds like very, very, bad news for those of us who have stuck with Dish on the hope and promise that there would be more HD this year. If there is not a competitive lineup to Direct this year due to this then I think I will make the jump. That would be a contract break and loosing the DVR (622) that I love (and all the recordings on my external USB drive!), but this waiting game has got to end.
> 
> I am really looking for a ray of hope as I don't want to leave Dish!
> 
> Thanks,
> -Alex-


I don't claim to be an expert.. I just play one here. In the short term this is going to setback Dish to some extent. In the longterm it will probably not matter. Dish has some backups and still has some empty space. My guess is that they were holding that empty space to make sure this satellite got up and going. Now with this seeming failure, I expect to see Dish go ahead and use some of that empty space to get some things up and going. And then in the background start trying to get their Plan B in place. And yes they had to have a Plan B. They knew that there are always risk with launches so they had to already have a contengency. I suspect we will hear about that plan in the near future.. Along with a statement from Dish that this Satellite loss in no way will interfere with their plan to be the HD leader (rumor control). I wouldn't panic as a Dish Subscriber.


----------



## James Long

Tom Robertson said:


> <moderator note>
> Please do not bring politics of any country into this discussion. Reporting of budget numbers is ok--if done without extra commentary.
> 
> Thanks for understanding,
> Tom


Thanks Tom ... I was about to say that. 

A reminder for those bashing ILS for their ties to "Russia" (and SES & DISH Network for choosing them to launch the satellite):


> Sea Launch Company, LLC, is an international partnership of American, Russian, Ukrainian and Norwegian businesses providing reliable, cost effective, heavy lift launch services for commercial customers.


DirecTV 5 and DirecTV 8 were both launched by ILS.


----------



## jrb531

bairda said:


> Can some of the experts here give us casual forum members a short overview of what this means to the future of Dish HD. This is assuming that they have to "deorbit" the satellite and cannot send up another bird anytime soon (next year or so).
> 
> Specifically I would like an opinion on the following:
> -Will Dish be able to add the extra channels that it needs to compete with Directs HD lead in the immediate future (next 3-4 months) as they had stated in their chats?
> -Will this impact Dish's existing lineup in the near term?
> -Would this make you start leaning toward a switch to Direct? I am looking for personal opinions here.
> 
> This sounds like very, very, bad news for those of us who have stuck with Dish on the hope and promise that there would be more HD this year. If there is not a competitive lineup to Direct this year due to this then I think I will make the jump. That would be a contract break and loosing the DVR (622) that I love (and all the recordings on my external USB drive!), but this waiting game has got to end.
> 
> I am really looking for a ray of hope as I don't want to leave Dish!
> 
> Thanks,
> -Alex-


I'm not an expert but my guess:

1. More HD for Dish? Yes but it will mean the difficult choice for Dish of advancing the recall of Mpeg2 boxes for Mpeg4. Mpeg 4 allows for more channels in less space. Right now Dish has a ton of legacy boxes out there that do not support Mpeg4 compression. Because of this they have to use Mpeg2 to transmit the bulk of their programming. It "may" be cheaper for them to encourage their customers to upgrade while adding all new channels in Mpeg4 as they have been doing. I have no idea how many legacy Mpeg2 boxes they still have out there. If too many then this is not an option. Either way this will take longer than 3-4 months so my answer is maybe a channel or two but another sat is about to go up.... maybe this will help.

2. Impacting Dish Lineup? Only in so far as the possibility of cutting out some PPV channels and deciding to dump a shopping channel or two to make room. The problem is that it takes about 2 SD channels to make room for 1 HD channel assuming the SD channels are in Mpeg2 and the HD channel in Mpeg4

3. Switch to D*? I like Dish, I hate the extra DVR fees, I LOVE the 622/722 and the D*'s boxes are still so-so. If D* ever gets a box as good as the 622/722 (or close to it) and I can get two HD DVR's from them for close to the same as Dish then yes I would consider it. It D* wants to charge me $500 for two HD DVR's then no way!

-JB


----------



## jclewter79

Since E* did not own this sattilite can we assume that no lease fees changed hands until the bird was to be turned over to them? I guess my question is E* out any actual money over this? (other than lost future revenue)


----------



## James Long

bairda said:


> Can some of the experts here give us casual forum members a short overview of what this means to the future of Dish HD. This is assuming that they have to "deorbit" the satellite and cannot send up another bird anytime soon (next year or so).


For clarity ... getting an exact replacement for AMC-14 may take a while. AMC-14 is a high powered DBS satellite ... not the more common Ku FSS or C Band satellite. There are other DBS satellites in the sky and DISH still has two more launches this year (one via Sea-Launch in a couple of months). The next bird will not take years to get up.



> Specifically I would like an opinion on the following:
> -Will Dish be able to add the extra channels that it needs to compete with Directs HD lead in the immediate future (next 3-4 months) as they had stated in their chats?
> -Will this impact Dish's existing lineup in the near term?
> -Would this make you start leaning toward a switch to Direct? I am looking for personal opinions here.


The HD locals should not be a problem ... although it appears that DISH was relying on AMC-14 to be able to move ConUS feeds off of the transponders at 61.5° that they need to convert to SpotBeam as well as for new national HD from 61.5°. Without AMC-14 DISH has to rely on a satellite they were intending to remove from service in the next couple of months because of it's age and failures.

DISH has E6 as a spare at 110° today ... as noted earlier in the thread it would be foolish to move it before E11 reaches orbit (just in case). DISH has filed to move E6 to 77° but could move it to 61.5° (assuming AMC-14 doesn't get there).

DISH has the space to easily add at least a dozen new HD channels today ... but if they uplink them on transponders with no backup they could abruptly go away. That is the gamble with using E3. I can't imaging this event not delaying DISH's plans by another couple of months. But the next launch is that close.

The existing lineup is not threatened ... at least not any more than it was before this launch. DISH should be able to leave everything up they have unless they make the choice to shift things around.

I wouldn't switch to DirecTV if they sent me free equipment and gave me free service. Obviously this event was not what DISH wanted to happen with AMC-14 ... but they are still in business and will remain in business. They will have to change their business plans to work around not having AMC-14 but they still have 13 million customers to serve.


----------



## longrider

jclewter79 said:


> Since E* did not own this sattilite can we assume that no lease fees changed hands until the bird was to be turned over to them? I guess my question is E* out any actual money over this? (other than lost future revenue)


I dont know the details of the contract but I would consider that a safe assumption. As a general rule the lessee is not responsible for anything until the leased property is turned over to the lessee.


----------



## Hutch123

bairda said:


> -Would this make you start leaning toward a switch to Direct? I am looking for personal opinions here.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Alex-


I am very dissapointed in the failure of this sat launch but have no plans to leave Dish. I am very happy with my DVR's, EHD & Archos and would not want to give them up for a few more channels that I would probably not watch anyway. Maybe they can trade some of those PPV HD channels!!! Do we really need 25 PPV. I know its not that many but it is a lot.


----------



## P Smith

*Back to the topic.*

As Russians reported, the second burn ( of three ) of second stage did premature shutoff ( 130 second before normal ) and AMC-14 has been released unexpectedly. 
So, the sat is alone now .


----------



## space86

Are they going to shot down AMC 14 or will it just burn up ?


----------



## James Long

I'm still hoping for a late arrival in the proper orbit! 

The US government only shot down the last one because they lost all control and were concerned about the fuel (probably some national security concerns too). If AMC-14 is deorbited they can just burn off the fuel and it will likely fry in orbit. (There are also no national security concerns.)


----------



## P Smith

They are WORKING on all possible variants - just sit tight and wait, your proposals irrelevant.


----------



## jacmyoung

bairda said:


> Can some of the experts here give us casual forum members a short overview of what this means to the future of Dish HD. This is assuming that they have to "deorbit" the satellite and cannot send up another bird anytime soon (next year or so).
> 
> Specifically I would like an opinion on the following:
> -Will Dish be able to add the extra channels that it needs to compete with Directs HD lead in the immediate future (next 3-4 months) as they had stated in their chats?
> -Will this impact Dish's existing lineup in the near term?
> -Would this make you start leaning toward a switch to Direct? I am looking for personal opinions here.
> 
> This sounds like very, very, bad news for those of us who have stuck with Dish on the hope and promise that there would be more HD this year. If there is not a competitive lineup to Direct this year due to this then I think I will make the jump. That would be a contract break and loosing the DVR (622) that I love (and all the recordings on my external USB drive!), but this waiting game has got to end.
> 
> I am really looking for a ray of hope as I don't want to leave Dish!
> 
> Thanks,
> -Alex-


One can only guess at this time.

Based on the latest tech chat, they seemed to count on AM14 to provide many more national HD's this year. I personaly did not even know how because AM14 was to 61.5 location, which does not serve the whole country.

But if AM14 is a loss, sounds to me all the new HD's are in question for this year. But DISH did say they have room NOW to add a few new HD's, only if they could get the contracts worked out. So my guess is they will put a few very popular HD's up sooner than later, and hoping to add more in 2009.

Again only a guess.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

P Smith said:


> your proposals irrelevant.


Please explain...


----------



## James Long

jacmyoung said:


> Based on the latest tech chat, they seemed to count on AM14 to provide many more national HD's this year. I personaly did not even know how because AM14 was to 61.5 location, which does not serve the whole country.


It would have helped served half of the country. The third satellite launch this year (Ceil-2) will help serve the other half.

At the end of the day worst case scenario (barring other problems) is that DISH will not be able to launch a single dish service for the east coast. People will continue to need a D500 (or better) pointed at 119° and 110° plus a 61.5° for extra HD and locals.

E11 going to 110° _WILL_ add HD at that prime spot visible nationwide. There is still a way.


----------



## P Smith

Earl Bonovich said:


> Please explain...


It was reply to post#89.


----------



## DirecTV-Sub

James Long said:


> I wouldn't switch to DirecTV if they sent me free equipment and gave me free service.


I would think most would though.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Let's keep this thread on topic about the launch and it's issues.

Ramifications should be discussed in a seperate thread.


----------



## rotomike

Does anyone know what company is franticly trying to figure out how to get that bird going again?

Lockheed?
Echostar?
Russians?
Proton?
ILS?
SES?
Nasa?


or some combination of these and does there websites say anything about what the latest knews is about it. 

Mike


----------



## davisdog

rotomike said:


> Does anyone know what company is franticly trying to figure out how to get that bird going again?
> 
> Lockheed?
> Echostar?
> Russians?
> Proton?
> ILS?
> SES?
> Nasa?
> 
> or some combination of these and does there websites say anything about what the latest knews is about it.
> 
> Mike


At this point it would be lockheed (satellite manufacture) and SES (Satellite Operator) who would look at contingencies to raise it to a working orbit using the onboard thrusters/fuel. It all depends on what the current orbit is (and it's relation to the final) and how much fuel/how big the thrusters are.

You probably won't hear of any plans for a while (week +) as they have to look at a whole bunch of different angles (literally).


----------



## James Long

Earl Bonovich said:


> Let's keep this thread on topic about the launch and it's issues.
> 
> Ramifications should be discussed in a seperate thread.


At least keep it focused on the problem and the challenge DISH Network faces ... not other providers and gloating/jokes/etc.



rotomike said:


> Does anyone know what company is franticly trying to figure out how to get that bird going again?


P Smith noted that the satellite had separated. IMHO: That would put it in the hands of SES (the launch has ended). If it is still connected to part of the launch vehicle ILS would be involved as well.

I would not expect to hear anything official for a few days ... especially on a weekend. I expect we will get a reassuring press release from DISH Network at some point.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

James Long said:


> At least keep it focused on the problem and the challenge DISH Network faces ... not other providers and gloating/jokes/etc.


Yes, that is more of what I ment...
Thank you for the clarrification.


----------



## HIPAR

This illustration provides some insight into the complexities of the launch.


----------



## P Smith

"The botched second burn was to have further boosted the payload into an elongated transfer orbit with a high point of 22,211 miles and a low point of 553 miles. "
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/proton/amc14/

So, it's not on Target Orbit but close to it rather to GSO.


----------



## fredp

James Long said:


> I would not expect to hear anything official for a few days ... especially on a weekend. I expect we will get a reassuring press release from DISH Network at some point.


The reassuring press release needs to come ASAP. Wallstreet will demand that otherwise the stock now trading at half of what it was in late Oct will seem like a high point and effect whatever borrowing will be needed to contract for another build.


----------



## Paul Secic

Suomi said:


> Seriously. I wonder what this means for Dish at this point.


No new HD for quite a while!:nono2:


----------



## P Smith

I'm pretty sure last night was sleepless for many ppl in that companies.


----------



## Stephen J

Anyone care to speculate as to whether not this will delay the HD LiLs that were already announced for this April? Epically the ones that have been uplinked in the past two weeks. 

Is their a reason that E11 has to go to 110? It seems like the birds at 110 are in good shape, and don't need replacement, why not put it at 61.5 instead?


----------



## DustoMan

Thanks, James. I hope your post will calm some of the FUD people have been posting in this thread. It's not like service is going to disappear just because one satellite doesn't go up. I'd bet 80% of DISH's subscribers have no idea about the satellite launch schedule. All they really care about is the service they are getting now.


----------



## Slamminc11

DustoMan said:


> Thanks, James. I hope your post will calm some of the FUD people have been posting in this thread. It's not like service is going to disappear just because one satellite doesn't go up. I'd bet 80% of DISH's subscribers have no idea about the satellite launch schedule. All they really care about is the service they are getting now.


I'm willing to bet it is closer to 95-98% of the subs didn't know.


----------



## James Long

The launch was mentioned on Charlie Chat (and broadcast live on channel 101). Doesn't everybody watch channel 101 24/7 ? 

Losing AMC-14 hurts ... but it isn't the end of the world or DISH Network. The biggest thing I see it hurting is the plans for a "one dish" service for the east coast. (As discussed earlier in the thread.) It will also take more work to get "most" of the national HD DISH "hoped" to have up "by summer". But they could still get a few channels up.

(BTW: FUD is "fear, uncertainty and doubt" for those who are not aware.)


----------



## James Long

Stephen J said:


> Anyone care to speculate as to whether not this will delay the HD LiLs that were already announced for this April? Epically the ones that have been uplinked in the past two weeks.


The recent table additions (uplinks) are on spotbeams at 61.5° ... not directly affected by AMC-14.



> Is their a reason that E11 has to go to 110? It seems like the birds at 110 are in good shape, and don't need replacement, why not put it at 61.5 instead?


E11 is more needed at 110° than 61.5° ... it will provide more national HD as well as boost coverage to the entire country including Alaska and Hawaii. E6 is being freed up at 110° (it is currently a spare - E8 will become the spare). E6 is slated to move to 77° ... 61.5° isn't much further. Speculation, of course, but I believe DISH has an easy "plan B".


----------



## WebTraveler

Now that the launch was ineffective, do I still upgrade to Dish HD or do I go to Directv? I mean, I look at the channel list and on Dish its pretty sparse. On Directv it is much longer. 

I've read in great detail about how crappy Directv DVRs are, so I am concerned about that. Also, the uncertainty of the Dish DVR TIVO patent infringement situation plays into this as well.

But can I justify signing up with Dish for another 24 months with the HD and DVR uncertainty? 24 months is a LONG time. My Dish committment expired long ago and it's kind of nice at the moment not being bound.


----------



## bartendress

fredp said:


> The reassuring press release needs to come ASAP. Wallstreet will demand that otherwise the stock now trading at half of what it was in late Oct will seem like a high point and effect whatever borrowing will be needed to contract for another build.


A) Everything is trading at 1/2 of what it was in October. It's called a Bear Market... and Wall Street (yes, it really requires two words) has bigger things to worry about,

B) DISH doesn't own the satellite nor the launch vehicle. It was in line to lease the satellite once it attained the proper orbit and became operational. DISH has not lost a dime as a direct result of this anomaly,

C) DISH has construction/leases on other birds in the pipe already,

D) Beyond the birds in the queue, DISH surely has back-up plans.

Let's all just cinch up our Depends. It will be OK.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Only you can decide that.


WebTraveler said:


> Now that the launch was ineffective, do I still upgrade to Dish HD or do I go to Directv? I mean, I look at the channel list and on Dish its pretty sparse. On Directv it is much longer.
> 
> I've read in great detail about how crappy Directv DVRs are, so I am concerned about that. Also, the uncertainty of the Dish DVR TIVO patent infringement situation plays into this as well.
> 
> But can I justify signing up with Dish for another 24 months with the HD and DVR uncertainty? 24 months is a LONG time. My Dish committment expired long ago and it's kind of nice at the moment not being bound.


----------



## Jestr40

WebTraveler said:


> Now that the launch was ineffective, do I still upgrade to Dish HD or do I go to Directv? I mean, I look at the channel list and on Dish its pretty sparse. On Directv it is much longer.
> 
> I've read in great detail about how crappy Directv DVRs are, so I am concerned about that. Also, the uncertainty of the Dish DVR TIVO patent infringement situation plays into this as well.
> 
> But can I justify signing up with Dish for another 24 months with the HD and DVR uncertainty? 24 months is a LONG time. My Dish committment expired long ago and it's kind of nice at the moment not being bound.


The quality of the DVR is not the issue you should be worried about. I have two of the HR-21's and they work fine (not as good as my old TIVO units but fine none-the-less). The issue is the upgrade fee, it is rediculous to say the least. However, I would bet any active Dish customer could get the entire fee waived if they asked.
I am certainly not bashing Dish, as I still keep my Comcast active for the content they offer me, but every person should explore all otions available. I also TOTATLY AGREE that with in two years cable, DirecTv, Dish, Verizon, ect. will ALL have similar HD lineups, so Dish customers need to keep perspective of what the future holds.


----------



## DirecTV-Sub

I'm a recent D* convert after 7 years with DN. I anguished also to make the move - after a couple of weeks of getting used to where the channels are, I have to tell you it is no big deal.

I'm not telling you to change, that's your business, but it was in fact pretty seamless. Also, the HD-DVR works just fine.

Your loyalty should be with yourself, not ANY of these providers. Choose whichever company gives you what you want.


----------



## lwilli201

AMC-14 I believe was supposed to replace Echo Star 3 which is over 10 years old. Assuming that ES3 will last another 5 years, it seems that there may be some pressure to get another sat to 61.5. I believe SES has 2 more satellites going up for Dish. Do not know when or where they are supposed to go however. In any case this failure hurts because this puts Dish one satellite behind in their plans.


----------



## inkahauts

krisztoforo said:


> So I'm reading this on the spaceflightnow.com page:
> "AMC 14 could reach its target orbit if there is enough space fuel on-board, or officials could elect to use a dramatic lunar flyby to use the moon's gravity to slingshot the craft into geosynchronous orbit. Such a maneuver succeeded in 1998 for AsiaSat 3, another satellite victim of a Proton failure."
> 
> Can anyone explain to me how they can do this? (the lunar fly-by) This is the first time I've heard about such a thing. Does this mean they would break the sat out of Earth orbit?? Wouldn't that require a huge amount of fuel?


I believe that it would use far less fuel to put a sat into an extreme eliptical orbit that would push the sat to the moon and use the moons gavity to force a higher altitude rather than trying to inch a sat into a higher orbit with just the on board fuel... I believ it would be like skipping the sat off of the earths gravity... anyone with a detailed explanation or link that could share with us?


----------



## inkahauts

Badger said:


> D10 which went up without a flaw last summer was on a proton but D11 which is scheduled to go up Monday is being launched by sealaunch. D12 is built and presently stored as a backup/future bird.


D12 has now been announced for lauch for 2009, yet not by whom... I wonder how this will affect that choice, and I also wonder if this will affect Dish's other launches this year... Will it delay other launches (who is launching the other sats?)? I really hope not....


----------



## BNUMM

Echostar 11 is scheduled for SeaLaunch.


----------



## Tom Robertson

inkahauts said:


> D12 has now been announced for lauch for 2009, yet not by whom... I wonder how this will affect that choice, and I also wonder if this will affect Dish's other launches this year... Will it delay other launches (who is launching the other sats?)? I really hope not....


Yes, this will definitely affect all the launch manifests for at least a year. ILS probably will be on hold for 2-8 months, every other launcher will be overwhelmed to take up the load.

Ouch.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Indiana627

WebTraveler said:


> Now that the launch was ineffective, do I still upgrade to Dish HD or do I go to Directv?
> 
> I've read in great detail about how crappy Directv DVRs are, so I am concerned about that.


My advice is don't take everything you read about the D* DVRs as gospel. I've had and HR20 since June 07 and don't have any problems. I had D* Tivo based HD DVR before that (and still have D* SD Tivo) and find the HR20 just as good as the Tivo.

Just remember with most sites like this, only people with problems are going to come looking for help and/or to vent. Name me one product you have that works as expected that you take the time to first find a site dedicated to it, and then you take the time to post that it works great. That simply doesn't happen that often, which is why the posts for any product almost always skew way to the negative side.

As for your TV provider decision, just do what you think is right. Personally, I can't recommend D* enough, but I know they're not everyone's cup of tea for whatever reason (just like I could never envision myself signing up with E* - they just don't come across as a company I'd like to do business with).


----------



## inkahauts

WebTraveler said:


> Now that the launch was ineffective, do I still upgrade to Dish HD or do I go to Directv? I mean, I look at the channel list and on Dish its pretty sparse. On Directv it is much longer.
> 
> I've read in great detail about how crappy Directv DVRs are, so I am concerned about that. Also, the uncertainty of the Dish DVR TIVO patent infringement situation plays into this as well.
> 
> But can I justify signing up with Dish for another 24 months with the HD and DVR uncertainty? 24 months is a LONG time. My Dish committment expired long ago and it's kind of nice at the moment not being bound.


First off, I would not soley base any decisions you make on this launch faliure...

Second I am a Directv sub, and the crappy DVR you speak of is not crappy at all.. I love all 4 of mine...

But the main reason I want to reply here is that I hope no one leaves Dish because of this... Frankly, even if this slows Dishes expansion some, it is still far ahead of cable, and I believe that sat needs to stay strong in order for providers to push broadcasters for more true HD offereings, and that we need more broadcasters supplying true HD to push the cable companies into provideing consumers with more HD. It is a chain reaction.. And all that competition is good for consumers...

If I am correct, Directv will be able to offer all the HD out there and more after D11 is up and running, and if I were them, I would offer up a temporary lease of transponders, maybe even spares, at 110 and 119 to Dish. Some may say this is stupid, but I don't believe it is.... The reality is that its competition that will be there no matter what you do, and frankly, Dish is helping Directv pull customers away from cable, not each other... The enemy of my enemy is my friend they say... Now my only question is, would that be technically doable....

I really feel for all Dish subs..... This is not a good thing, but have faith, I will predict now that within 2 years, no one will even remmeber this as anything more than a small bump in the road...

And I would love to see them use some risky untested engineering theroy and get the sat to its intended location... Nothing more exciting than breaking new ground in space, and I hope they look at this as one of those situations, to do something rather than fall prey to some insurance companyies desire to burn something that could be very useful...


----------



## photostudent

Sad to see guys. Competition is was keeps prices reasonable. If not for the DBS companies we would all be paying $400 a month for cable.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

Will they try to force the satellite to burn in the atmosphere now, or will it drift?


----------



## Slamminc11

inkahauts said:


> First off, I would not soley base any decisions you make on this launch faliure...


I would agree on this point.



inkahauts said:


> But the main reason I want to reply here is that I hope no one leaves Dish because of this... Frankly, even if this slows Dishes expansion some, it is still far ahead of cable...
> I really feel for all Dish subs..... This is not a good thing, but have faith, I will predict now that within 2 years, no one will even remmeber this as anything more than a small bump in the road...


I don't think this launch affects the majority of the Dish subs or all as you suggest, nor do I think that most Dish subs even know that there was a launch last night. If Dish had 11 or 12 million customers with HD then there would be reason to feel for "all Dish subs". But in reality, 11-12 million of them only subscribe to SD and not HD, so this launch, good or bad didn't affect them one way or another at this point.


----------



## James Long

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Will they try to force the satellite to burn in the atmosphere now, or will it drift?


Seven hours ago I was hopeful that launch could still be salvaged ... don't lose hope yet. 

Guys, don't forget that this is a serious thread about AMC-14' launch problem and how it affects DISH Network. Several moderator warnings stating so have been posted in the thread. Please keep focused on the problem and the challenge DISH Network faces ... not other providers and gloating/jokes/etc.

Thank You!

:backtotop


----------



## PCampbell

The directv DVRs are now quite good but I would not be so quick to jump from E*. D11 is not up yet, give E* time to tell you what there plans are and they may just get AMC-14 into possion but it will take time.


----------



## jacmyoung

To steer this topic back on track let me try this.

In a previous post I stated it is unlikely this bird may be salvaged due to insurance complications. But then I just thought about this:

Lets assume the bird is unharmed, and it is possible to use its on-board engine to move it to the correct location and still get a few years of life out of it.

I think it depends on if Charlie is willing to take the risk to work out a deal with SES, and whether SES is willing to take the risk on the insurance.

If my understanding of how insurance works is close enough, the insurance to cover the launch is just that, to cover the launch. Since the launch had failed the insurance should cover it. A different insurance (if SES elected to have it) should cover the test/operations of the bird. That insurance may no longer cover the bird anymore due to "pre-existing conditions" clause.

What do you guys think?


----------



## TulsaOK

DustoMan said:


> Thanks, James. I hope your post will calm some of the FUD people have been posting in this thread. It's not like service is going to disappear just because one satellite doesn't go up. I'd bet 80% of DISH's subscribers have no idea about the satellite launch schedule. All they really care about is the service they are getting now.


FUD; now there's an acronym I haven't heard in a while.


----------



## Richard King

> Lets assume the bird is unharmed, and it is possible to use its on-board engine to move it to the correct location and still get a few years of life out of it.
> 
> I think it depends on if Charlie is willing to take the risk to work out a deal with SES, and whether SES is willing to take the risk on the insurance.


I had the same thought while reading through this thread. IF SES could get the satellite to the proper location they could do a fire sale (so to speak) to either Echostar or Dish Network. Echostar could then lease it back to Dish for it's (maybe) three-five year remaining life, or Dish could bypass the middle man. I, myself, hope they try to get it to the right location and do a deal.


----------



## Stephen J

Can the empty space at 105 be used for national HD, or HD LiLs, if need be?


----------



## bdowell

photostudent said:


> Sad to see guys. Competition is was keeps prices reasonable. If not for the DBS companies we would all be paying $400 a month for cable.


I was trying to think of something to say about this earlier, and these words sum it up for me. I'm sad for Dish here, and hope that they are able to use the bird, or if not that it doesn't take them long to launch a suitable replacement. Though I'm not a customer of Dish, I don't wish them ill and do want to see the competition continue.


----------



## James Long

Stephen J said:


> Can the empty space at 105 be used for national HD, or HD LiLs, if need be?


Yes ... that was one of the original plans for 105° back in 2003 ... but that would require the distribution and installation of SuperDishes. DISH's plan with AMC-14 requires a much easier to install dish.


----------



## rotomike

Im hearing a-lot of scared Dish folks and i think you can take a deep breath here. This bird was set to go to 61.5 and mostly feed HD locals to the east coast and to my knowledge wasnt going to feed any national channels at all. Also Dish has 2 more birds going up this year and one of them in a couple months and that will feed national channels and catch them up with DTV. Thats the bird to worry about and not this one right now.

mike


----------



## audiomaster

Maybe NASA can put a jet pack on Dextre the robot and send him over there to give it a good kick into orbit! Or, as I expect, is Dextre just a $200,000,000.00 hood ornament for the space station?


----------



## davisdog

jacmyoung said:


> To steer this topic back on track let me try this.
> 
> In a previous post I stated it is unlikely this bird may be salvaged due to insurance complications. But then I just thought about this:
> 
> Lets assume the bird is unharmed, and it is possible to use its on-board engine to move it to the correct location and still get a few years of life out of it.
> 
> I think it depends on if Charlie is willing to take the risk to work out a deal with SES, and whether SES is willing to take the risk on the insurance.
> 
> If my understanding of how insurance works is close enough, the insurance to cover the launch is just that, to cover the launch. Since the launch had failed the insurance should cover it. A different insurance (if SES elected to have it) should cover the test/operations of the bird. That insurance may no longer cover the bird anymore due to "pre-existing conditions" clause.
> 
> What do you guys think?


Sat Companies have made settlements in the past for partial payment from the Insurer based on reduced lifetime due to a launch failure like this (having to use up precious fuel that would need to be used for Keeping it in the proper location for 15 years)...It's not always all or nothing

...but contracts due vary (depending on how much risk/cost you suck up)...I havent seen there's so I'm just speaking on how some previous partial failures have played out.

The scenario to get it to the right spot in a Geo orbit is a little nasty though because they launched out of Russia (way above the equator) and got stuck in a nasty transfer orbit (from a perspective of how much fuel it takes to not only circularize the orbit but also rotate it down to the equator). They would have a much better chance if this type of short stage2 burn with an early separation would have happened out of a launch site near an the equator (such as Ariane uses in Africa) or Sea Launch uses from the Pacific.

ps... for those dreaming about grabbing it or burning it back in...way too high for that.


----------



## audiomaster

Doesn't everybody watch channel 101 24/7 ? 


Well sure, except when my wife makes me change to Martha Stewart, or The VIew. Oh yea and Oprah! No wait, then there is Cashmere Mafia, Lost, and Sex and the City reruns! And old episodes of Charmed. :nono2:


----------



## jacmyoung

Richard King said:


> ...IF SES could get the satellite to the proper location they could do a fire sale (so to speak) to either Echostar or Dish Network. ...


If so it will not be the first time Charlie ever did so, and somehow they all have to do with 61.5


----------



## bobinboise

yihaa75 said:


> Yup, its not the cost of the satellite as I bet the launch is insured, but the lost time and revenue that stems from that.
> 
> But hey, what can you expect from using russian services for launch. Cheap means risk. The cheaper you go, the more risk. Hey Echo, I'll launch your sats for only a mill.
> 
> they played their card and lost.
> 
> hey, how many echo sats have been succesful. it seems a lot have failed. I think they have to bathe themselves in holy water or something like that.
> 
> Only failure after failure.


ILS is not necessarily the cheapest out there. They do, however, have one of the best success rates since they were partially privatized after the Cold War.

Remember, SeaLaunch, an American operation, had an explosion on the pad last winter that destroyed a payload, and shut down their operations for several months while repairs were undertaken. It delayed DIRECTV10, and the MPEG4 HD expansion, which eventually was launched at Baikonor by ILS. A few years ago, D* also had a LIL spot beam satellite that failed to initialize after reaching orbit. That delayed local channel start-ups that DIRECTV had given HARD, FIRM, dates on by around 9 months. Thousands of customers became angry and switched to Dish Network because DIRECTV didn't deliver on the dates they promised. That's why DIRECTV now only states "coming soon", and doesn't give you what date new stuff starts up until it is started.

It's not about how much Ergen is willing to pay for a launch. It's about one of the most amazing and dangerous technologies being stretched to the limits, and every launch is a crap shoot.

Bob


----------



## skyviewmark1

bobinboise said:


> ILS is not necessarily the cheapest out there. They do, however, have one of the best success rates since they were partially privatized after the Cold War.
> 
> Remember, SeaLaunch, an American operation, had an explosion on the pad last winter that destroyed a payload, and shut down their operations for several months while repairs were undertaken. It delayed DIRECTV10, and the MPEG4 HD expansion, which eventually was launched at Baikonor by ILS. A few years ago, D* also had a LIL spot beam satellite that failed to initialize after reaching orbit. That delayed local channel start-ups that DIRECTV had given HARD, FIRM, dates on by around 9 months. Thousands of customers became angry and switched to Dish Network because DIRECTV didn't deliver on the dates they promised. That's why DIRECTV now only states "coming soon", and doesn't give you what date new stuff starts up until it is started.
> 
> It's not about how much Ergen is willing to pay for a launch. It's about one of the most amazing and dangerous technologies being stretched to the limits, and every launch is a crap shoot.
> 
> Bob


I don't remember D10 ever being scheduled on SeaLaunch.. D11 is going up that way.. And SeaLaunch is not an American Company.. It is a joint American/Russian organization.. So D10 delays had nothing to do with SeaLaunch. It was always scheduled to go up from the Cosmodrome.. It did have delays, but it was other reasons.


----------



## Tom Robertson

D10 was mistakenly thought to be scheduled on SeaLaunch, was always planned for ILS. ILS had their own problems as well as a delay on the assembly/testing side of D10 itself.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## davisdog

skyviewmark1 said:


> I don't remember D10 ever being scheduled on SeaLaunch.. D11 is going up that way.. And SeaLaunch is not an American Company.. It is a joint American/Russian organization.. So D10 delays had nothing to do with SeaLaunch. It was always scheduled to go up from the Cosmodrome.. It did have delays, but it was other reasons.


Sealaunch is an American Company (primarily funded by Boeing, HQ in Long Beach California, Boeing picked CEO) but they do use a Russian based Launch Vehicle also and the Russians/Ukraine (and Norway) provide some funding. And your correct D10 was never planned for SeaLaunch... D11 is.


----------



## Richard King

WAAAY back on page 4


jrb531 said:


> I'm not an expert but my guess:
> 
> 1. More HD for Dish? Yes but it will mean the difficult choice for Dish of advancing the recall of Mpeg2 boxes for Mpeg4. Mpeg 4 allows for more channels in less space. Right now Dish has a ton of legacy boxes out there that do not support Mpeg4 compression. -JB


I think it may be time for Dish to do an analysis of DMA's based on number of local channels vs. number of subscribers and start swapping out MPEG2 receivers for MPEG4 receivers in those DMA's with the best ratios. Once the boxes are swapped, turn off the local into local MPEG2 channels and turn them on in MPEG4, thereby opening up bandwidth for additional HD programming. This will have to be done eventually, so why not get the ball rolling now?


----------



## skyviewmark1

davisdog said:


> Sealaunch is an American Company (primarily funded by Boeing, HQ in Long Beach California, Boeing picked CEO) but they do use a Russian based Launch Vehicle also and the Russians/Ukraine (and Norway) provide some funding. And your correct D10 was never planned for SeaLaunch... D11 is.


Well I knew the Russians were involved in it somehow..


----------



## HobbyTalk

davisdog said:


> Sealaunch is an American Company (primarily funded by Boeing, HQ in Long Beach California, Boeing picked CEO) but they do use a Russian based Launch Vehicle also and the Russians/Ukraine (and Norway) provide some funding. And your correct D10 was never planned for SeaLaunch... D11 is.


Four companies from four countries share ownership of Cayman Islands-registered Sea Launch.

The founding companies included Boeing Commercial Space Company of US (40% of the authorized capital), S.P.Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation Energia of Russia (25%), Kvaerner Maritime a.s. of Norway (20%) and aerospace companies from Ukraine: Production Association Yuzhmashzavod, M.K.Yangel Design Bureau Yuzhnoye (15%).

http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/sea-launch/partner.html


----------



## HDlover

Richard King said:


> WAAAY back on page 4
> I think it may be time for Dish to do an analysis of DMA's based on number of local channels vs. number of subscribers and start swapping out MPEG2 receivers for MPEG4 receivers in those DMA's with the best ratios. Once the boxes are swapped, turn off the local into local MPEG2 channels and turn them on in MPEG4, thereby opening up bandwidth for additional HD programming. This will have to be done eventually, so why not get the ball rolling now?


Easier and cheaper to put the few HD programs "On Demand", it's the future anyway. What do you think Comcast is going to do when they can deliver 100mbs shortly. SDV and On Demand with probably eventually everything On Demand. The networks (their sponsors) are not going to put up with commercial skipping much longer. This satelite is only a short term solution so they should do everything they can to get it in orbit. If I was Dish I would not buy/lease a new satelite for 5 years hence. TV by then is going to be all IPTV.


----------



## James Long

For live TV satellite is the #1 most effective way of reaching the greatest number of people with the lowest cost and amount of infrastructure. I believe that there will be an increase in demand for "on demand" viewing --- TV when the viewer demands it --- but the demand for live broadcast TV isn't going away in the near future.

Depending on what the FCC decides about DTV carriage for next year DISH is going to need MORE bandwidth. 12 SD channel per transponder needs to make way for 6 HD channels per transponder (or 36 SDs). DISH has plenty of licensed transponders to make it work. Now they just have to get the satellites in the right place.

Which is, of course, what this thread is about. A satellite that didn't quite make it.


----------



## cartrivision

krisztoforo said:


> So I'm reading this on the spaceflightnow.com page:
> "AMC 14 could reach its target orbit if there is enough space fuel on-board, or officials could elect to use a dramatic lunar flyby to use the moon's gravity to slingshot the craft into geosynchronous orbit. Such a maneuver succeeded in 1998 for AsiaSat 3, another satellite victim of a Proton failure."
> 
> Can anyone explain to me how they can do this? (the lunar fly-by) This is the first time I've heard about such a thing. Does this mean they would break the sat out of Earth orbit?? Wouldn't that require a huge amount of fuel?


Yes it does involve doing an orbit around the moon..... and yes it does use up a lot of it's fuel that is intended for station keeping once it's in it's proper orbit.

For starters see:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/hsc_pressreleases/photogallery/flyby/flyby.html
and:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/hsc_pressreleases/98_04_29_lunar.html

....and then Google _hughes failed satellite launch moon_ for more resources.


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> The existing lineup is not threatened ... at least not any more than it was before this launch. DISH should be able to leave everything up they have unless they make the choice to shift things around.
> 
> ...They will have to change their business plans to work around not having AMC-14 but they still have 13 million customers to serve.





James Long said:


> Losing AMC-14 hurts ... but it isn't the end of the world or DISH Network. The biggest thing I see it hurting is the plans for a "one dish" service for the east coast. (As discussed earlier in the thread.) It will also take more work to get "most" of the national HD DISH "hoped" to have up "by summer". But they could still get a few channels up.


This isn't a minor issue from a marketing standpoint. Timing is everything right now. They need to get the nationals uplinked and turned on ASAP.

Am I wrong that they have seven HD nationals uplinked which could be turned on soon? That leaves 17 more nationals. We know they have space for some. So...

Couldn't Dish temporarily put the various Voom channel "program rotations" into a few channels set up like Noggin/N? Something like putting on one channel programming from Voom A for 16 hours, Voom B 16 hours, and Voom C 16 hours. It would cycle the programming around enough that everyone who wanted to watch it could get too it. That could free up 8-10 channels for nationals without depriving anyone of access to existing Voom programming. Though I guess it would surely reduce the value of my Ultimate HD.


----------



## James Long

The Voom channels are already the subject of a lawsuit (still waiting for a decision on Cablevision's request for a temporary restraining order to keep the Voom channels in the lowest HD package). It would probably be best for DISH not to mess with them any further.

Who knows that there was a launch problem? DBS geeks? As noted in the messages you quoted ... DISH has not lost a single existing channel because of this problem. HD is a growing part of the industry but not the bulk of their customers. The "one dish" system for the east coast has not been marketed (it is barely more than a rumor with uplink activity support). And no specific promises were made in last Monday's Charlie Chat. 

A verbal "hope to have by summer" isn't a promise. 100 HD locals (and 24 new HD nationals) by the end of the year is the only pending promise. DISH has plenty of time to get there and options available. If the rocket scientists can't figure out how to get AMC-14 where it belongs DISH will work out something else - and marketing will be saved by engineering (again ).


----------



## jclewter79

HDlover said:


> Easier and cheaper to put the few HD programs "On Demand", it's the future anyway. What do you think Comcast is going to do when they can deliver 100mbs shortly. SDV and On Demand with probably eventually everything On Demand. The networks (their sponsors) are not going to put up with commercial skipping much longer. This satelite is only a short term solution so they should do everything they can to get it in orbit. If I was Dish I would not buy/lease a new satelite for 5 years hence. TV by then is going to be all IPTV.


I really do not think that IPTV is going to take over sattilite coverage. You have to remember that many that get sattitlite can't get high speed internet yet.


----------



## JJJBBB

Wow, so sorry for Dish. Hope we have better luck with 11.


----------



## dodge boy

My concern would be if these don't get into the correct orbit and need to be removed or if they fall and need to be shot down, who pays that expense?


----------



## jclewter79

dodge boy said:


> My concern would be if these don't get into the correct orbit and need to be removed or if they fall and need to be shot down, who pays that expense?


It won't be E* they did not own the bird. Besides, It is so far out I imagine it is so far out will just get sent out further if they decide to junk it.


----------



## Richard King

dodge boy said:


> My concern would be if these don't get into the correct orbit and need to be removed or if they fall and need to be shot down, who pays that expense?


Well, an earlier post stated that the satellite ended up about 5,000 miles below its intended target altitude. If this is the case the satellite is drifting somewhere around 15,000 miles high. It will be a VERY long time before this drifts back to earth on its own. It could be steered back and, if so, would simply burn up on re-entry with no need to shoot it down.


----------



## Richard King

phrelin said:


> Couldn't Dish temporarily put the various Voom channel "program rotations" into a few channels set up like Noggin/N? Something like putting on one channel programming from Voom A for 16 hours, Voom B 16 hours, and Voom C 16 hours. It would cycle the programming around enough that everyone who wanted to watch it could get too it. That could free up 8-10 channels for nationals without depriving anyone of access to existing Voom programming. Though I guess it would surely reduce the value of my Ultimate HD.


They have a CONTRACT with VOOM to carry what is there. Nothing is going to happen to Voom unless Voom does something to break their contract, of course, it could be said that they are well on their way with their lack of new programming.


----------



## dodge boy

I was just wondering if there was a prodicall for such an instance like our military had to shoot down that spy satellite, since this would be a private company would they get a bill from who ever illiminated it if one of these was ever to become a threat.
That could be abig bill, not just the missle to remove it but all the man hours and the time, fuel of the ship.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

dodge boy said:


> I was just wondering if there was a prodicall for such an instance like our military had to shoot down that spy satellite, since this would be a private company would they get a bill from who ever illiminated it if one of these was ever to become a threat.
> That could be abig bill, not just the missle to remove it but all the man hours and the time, fuel of the ship.


Long Long way from considering that at this point.

One of the factors of the one they shot down, was that it was not able to maintain an orbit.

The AMC-14 isn't damaged... it is just in the wrong spot.


----------



## Richard King

There were a couple of reasons that they shot down the one that they did. The stated reason was the dangerous fuel on board that could harm anyone who came in contact with it. I suspect another reason is that they didn't want the technology contained in the satellite to fall into the wrong hands. Shooting it down eliminated the possibility of either situation becoming a problem. This satellite poses neither of these problems since there is plenty of time to release the fuel on board and the satellite is nothing that special, certainly not top secret.


----------



## bigsurfer

The ses-americom.com site states: “AMERICOM-14 (AMC-14) is a BSS satellite featuring many noteworthy innovations, including an active phased array (APA) payload consisting of a receive mode APA antenna, and the highest levels of redundancy on core components such as amplifiers, receivers, commanding beam and computer control systems.”

What is a APA and can it help out in its current state?


----------



## MrDogDad

bigsurfer said:


> The ses-americom.com site states: "AMERICOM-14 (AMC-14) is a BSS satellite featuring many noteworthy innovations, including an active phased array (APA) payload consisting of a receive mode APA antenna, and the highest levels of redundancy on core components such as amplifiers, receivers, commanding beam and computer control systems."
> 
> What is a APA and can it help out in its current state?


An active phased array (APA) is an antenna that can be aimed electronically with no moving parts. This is a nice feature that may lengthen the service life of a satellite but it won't help AMC-14 get into it's proper orbit.


----------



## longrider

AMC14 is not going to get shot down. While it will never be publicly admitted, the reason for the spy sat shootdown was classified technology onboard. Most satellites will burn up in the atmosphere when they deorbit, and for the few parts that do make it to the surface you have to realize that with 70% of the earth's surface covered by water and while I dont know the exact number I will guess 5% of the land area is covered by man made structures there is a 98.5% chance the debris will plow into either water or undeveloped dirt.


----------



## alv

longrider said:


> AMC14 is not going to get shot down. While it will never be publicly admitted, the reason for the spy sat shootdown was classified technology onboard. Most satellites will burn up in the atmosphere when they deorbit, and for the few parts that do make it to the surface you have to realize that with 70% of the earth's surface covered by water and while I dont know the exact number I will guess 5% of the land area is covered by man made structures there is a 98.5% chance the debris will plow into either water or undeveloped dirt.


I agree that was probably the reason. In addition, one cannot shoot down a satellite in normal orbit. The debre field would be substantial and interfere with operational satellites. That is a big reason we were so upset at the Chinese for doing that a while ago. The military satellite we shot down had its orbit decayed to a point where the debre would still fall to the earth in a timely fashion.


----------



## Christopher Gould

davisdog said:


> Sat Companies have made settlements in the past for partial payment from the Insurer based on reduced lifetime due to a launch failure like this (having to use up precious fuel that would need to be used for Keeping it in the proper location for 15 years)...It's not always all or nothing
> 
> ...but contracts due vary (depending on how much risk/cost you suck up)...I havent seen there's so I'm just speaking on how some previous partial failures have played out.
> 
> The scenario to get it to the right spot in a Geo orbit is a little nasty though because they launched out of Russia (way above the equator) and got stuck in a nasty transfer orbit (from a perspective of how much fuel it takes to not only circularize the orbit but also rotate it down to the equator). They would have a much better chance if this type of short stage2 burn with an early separation would have happened out of a launch site near an the equator (such as Ariane uses in Africa) or Sea Launch uses from the Pacific.
> 
> ps... for those dreaming about grabbing it or burning it back in...way too high for that.


Ariane is in South America not Africa


----------



## longrider

Another thing I just thought about, since it is still operational from a control standpoint I would think they could control deorbiting enough to be sure anything that did not burn up landed in the ocean.

All this talk about deorbiting is depressing, I hope they come up with a way to save it. Even if burning its fuel to get it to station only leaves a 2 or 3 year useful life that is enough time for Dish to execute plan B.


----------



## rocatman

Very disappointed by the launch vehicle failure. I would elaborate further on possible recovery options but I do want to point out that Dish invested tens of millions of dollars to have the AMC-14 satellite modified in order for it to have the capability to be used over to areas; either 61.5 W to 77 W or 110 W to 148 W. This maybe a major factor related to insurance and what is done with the satellite.


----------



## clarkbaker

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sfn-080315-proton-failure.html


----------



## Raymie

Does this mean the satellite is unusable?


----------



## scott72

clarkbaker said:


> http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sfn-080315-proton-failure.html


Wow only 5 of 45 launches failed. Unfortunate for Dish.


----------



## scott72

Raymie said:


> Does this mean the satellite is unusable?


No..


----------



## Raymie

Thank you, Scott. This is the first time I've covered a satellite launch before for the News Monitor.


----------



## Aransay

mayeb it acan owk at a fifent orbit?
mabe move it to 77 west 

wer ened sihe mxico ofial oerptions


----------



## Raymie

Aransay, there's the FCC to deal with.

First, it has to do interference testing.

Besides, Dish is already asking the FCC to move a better sat there.


----------



## James Long

If DISH is unable to get AMC-14 to 61.5° they _may_ move that "better sat" to 61.5° instead of 77°. It all depends on which location is more important.

E4 can serve the Mexican needs from 77° ... E6 was going there to serve the US. With E3 not being able to meet the needs at 61.5° E6 to 61.5° makes more sense than E6 to 77° ... unless AMC-14 can get there.

Repeating for the people who just found this thread today:
_Guys, don't forget that this is a serious thread about AMC-14' launch problem and how it affects DISH Network. Several moderator warnings stating so have been posted in the thread. Please keep focused on the problem and the challenge DISH Network faces ... not other providers and gloating/jokes/etc._

Let's stay on topic ...


----------



## Paul Secic

DustoMan said:


> Thanks, James. I hope your post will calm some of the FUD people have been posting in this thread. It's not like service is going to disappear just because one satellite doesn't go up. I'd bet 80% of DISH's subscribers have no idea about the satellite launch schedule. All they really care about is the service they are getting now.


Yup about twelve and a half million people didn't know about the launch.


----------



## Lincoln6Echo

Did anybody see this portion of the article?



> Built by Lockheed Martin Corp., AMC 14 would have been parked in geosynchronous orbit at *61.5* degrees west longitude. The satellite's 32 Ku-band transponders were designed to serve the continental United States during a 15-year mission.


What good would that have done us 129 sat users?


----------



## Shellback X 23

MSoper72 said:


> If I have been reading this forum correctly. Yes, it may have failed, but if the upper stage is still connected to the satellite. Once they figure out the problem. I'm not sure, but I have this notion it can be reignited and the satellite should be placed in its proper location.


I was just thinking about the possibility of slowly kicking the satellite up to the proper orbital height if the final stage can be fired up again. It all depends on where it is now vs. where it needs to be. Also how much fuel is in the satellite its self for orbital changes that might be used for gaining altitude?

I was sitting on a ship just south of the equator, thus my handle, tracking the first synchronous orbit satellite in the 60's but left the business in '72 and a lot has changed in those few years.:lol:


----------



## Richard King

scott72 said:


> Wow only 5 of 45 launches failed. Unfortunate for Dish.


5 failures out of 45 is actually a TERRIBLE record. There are obviously some serious problems that need to be found.

Looking back at the Atlas IIAS vehicle that Dish used for Echostar V and VI, there were a total of 30 launches and there were NO failures in the history of the vehicle. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlsiias.htm


----------



## Paul Secic

audiomaster said:


> Maybe NASA can put a jet pack on Dextre the robot and send him over there to give it a good kick into orbit! Or, as I expect, is Dextre just a $200,000,000.00 hood ornament for the space station?


NASA shouldn't meddle in this private venture. It's just TV after all.


----------



## Richard King

> if the upper stage is still connected to the satellite.


I don't believe they are still connected.


----------



## jclewter79

Lincoln6Echo said:


> Did anybody see this portion of the article?
> 
> What good would that have done us 129 sat users?


None that I know of. That is why this is not the end of the world.


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> A verbal "hope to have by summer" isn't a promise. 100 HD locals (and 24 new HD nationals) by the end of the year is the only pending promise. DISH has plenty of time to get there and options available. If the rocket scientists can't figure out how to get AMC-14 where it belongs DISH will work out something else - and marketing will be saved by engineering (again ).


Their marketing needs to be saved by someone. It isn't the promise that's the problem. It's a longer term market identity problem. The possible loss of AMC-14 requires initiating plan D even while the rocket scientists work.

They need something short and repetitive, like turning on a national a week, each time adding a few seconds to the Frank Caliendo DVR ad saying "of course Dish has the HD channels _*you*_ want like XXX channel", _where they have locals_. And in areas where they don't have locals but there is known to be a large OTA audience, let them know "if you are getting your locals off an antenna, you now can get cable channels without paying for locals and you can record them in HD".

Of course us geeks here will grumble - not what _*I*_ want - but the OTA American viewing public is headed for the 2009 digital switchover. Dish needs something in addition to the DVR ads that essentially gives a subliminal message that Dish, DirecTV and your cable company are all doing the same thing about HD channels, so don't be fooled by the ads. Plus we have this cool DVR.


----------



## Gilitar

This looks like a very bad blow to Dish Network. They have already gotten behind Directv and now this. The next couple of years are going to be very tough on them. 

Everything I read seems to indicate that it takes approximately two years to build a launch a satellite. Saying that how can they compete with Directv?


----------



## DirecTV-Sub

James Long said:


> .
> 
> Who knows that there was a launch problem? DBS geeks? As noted in the messages you quoted ... DISH has not lost a single existing channel because of this problem. HD is a growing part of the industry but not the bulk of their customers.


Very naive statement. HD is THE growth part of the entire TV industry. The lowest churm, the highest average monthly bill, the subs EVERY provider is targeting right now.

Without new HD sub growth, any provider will lose to the competition. I think it's time for you to be a little less 'partial'.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Richard King said:


> 5 failures out of 45 is actually a TERRIBLE record. There are obviously some serious problems that need to be found.
> 
> Looking back at the Atlas IIAS vehicle that Dish used for Echostar V and VI, there were a total of 30 launches and there were NO failures in the history of the vehicle. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlsiias.htm


Overall, the private launch industry, if I recall correctly, has about a 85% launch success rate. Four of 45 is in line with that, though they had been higher.

And therein lies my concern, the failure rates the past 2 years seem to be quite high.

And I completely agree with Richard, something is not right with the industry right now. Russian/Ukrainian assembly problems? Risk analysis? I certainly don't know enough to judge.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## HobbyTalk

Richard King said:


> 5 failures out of 45 is actually a TERRIBLE record. There are obviously some serious problems that need to be found.


Sea Launch is no better. 3 failures out of 27 launches.


----------



## jclewter79

DirecTV-Sub said:


> Very naive statement. HD is THE growth part of the entire TV industry. The lowest churm, the highest average monthly bill, the subs EVERY provider is targeting right now.
> 
> Without new HD sub growth, any provider will lose to the competition. I think it's time for you to be a little less 'partial'.


E* is still very much in the game. The HD only pack for 29.99, free 722s for new subs, the list goes on. This is a minor setback, and if Charlie is able to get a fire sale deal out of this E* might come out smelling like a rose that will reflect in the programming prices. E* is far from losing to the competition.


----------



## peak_reception

What's the opposite of a F.U.D. ?


----------



## longrider

HobbyTalk said:


> Sea Launch is no better. 3 failures out of 27 launches.


With these stats I wonder why they (Dish and DirecTV) dont use Arianespace more? While their record around the turn of the century was not too great (including one rather spectacular failure) in recent years their record has been very good. However I only see one DBS sat (DirecTV 9S) in the launch log for the last 5 years


----------



## Richard King

peak_reception said:


> What's the opposite of a F.U.D. ?


D.U.F.?


----------



## Tom Robertson

longrider said:


> With these stats I wonder why they (Dish and DirecTV) dont use Arianespace more? While their record around the turn of the century was not too great (including one rather spectacular failure) in recent years their record has been very good. However I only see one DBS sat (DirecTV 9S) in the launch log for the last 5 years


While I'm not sure I have two guesses: 1) too expensive or 2) the delays involved in a dual satellite launch if the other satellite on the launch has operational/testing issues. (DIRECTV 9s was delayed because of its partner satellite on that launch.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Slamminc11

Gilitar said:


> This looks like a very bad blow to Dish Network. They have already gotten behind Directv and now this. The next couple of years are going to be very tough on them.
> 
> Everything I read seems to indicate that it takes approximately two years to build a launch a satellite. Saying that how can they compete with Directv?


So the other sats Dish has going up this year don't matter?


----------



## inkahauts

Gilitar said:


> This looks like a very bad blow to Dish Network. They have already gotten behind Directv and now this. The next couple of years are going to be very tough on them.
> 
> Everything I read seems to indicate that it takes approximately two years to build a launch a satellite. Saying that how can they compete with Directv?


They will compete easily with Directv... Because they are competing with Directv for cable customers, not each others...

I hope everyone will stop jumping up and down calling this a major blow to Dish. Its just not. Directv and Dish are competitors, yes, but lets face it, the majority of the subs they are going after are not each others... In fact the only reason they target each other is because they are fighting over cables customers, not their own, and each company has generally marketed itself completely differently, and most customers are going to choose between the two based off of everything they have heard in the past and what they perceive are the differences... Very few consumers are going to go to the length of research to find out which company lost a sat recently, and I do not believe that Directv would stoop so low as to point it out... cable might, but not Directv. And that marketing wont work for cable... Don't go to them, they just lost a sat so they can only have 5 times the HD we have instead of 7 times!.. Yeah right.... The reality is that Dish is going to continue its customer growth by stealing its customers from cable, not Directv. This launch anomaly is not going to cause Dish any massive loss of customers, just like when Directv didn't lose a massive amount of customers when they only had 10 HD channels for 2 years while Dish had over what, 30? And as a side note, its also not like any customer will every get told of the launch failure in a retail store, most of those employees have a hard enough time finding their way to the stockroom, much less keeping up on current sat launches...

Now, where's all the engineers with all the wacky theroys on how we can get this baby in its rightful home and fired up? Do we think they should use lots of fuel and get this bird in place as fast as possible, or should they use as little fuel and slide it slowly in place over an elongated period of time? Where is the point of equilibrium between those two options? How long can they take and have this anomily have no impact on their overall scheme by, say, Novemeber as they gear up for their holiday marketing? Any thoughts?

I really want to see this bird saved... and I'm a Direcvt customer....


----------



## P Smith

We cant say anything in real - too much unknown factors - ample of impulse of those AMC-14 thrusters, fuel amount, are they capable hold the impulse for many minutes like second stage (Briz-M), etc. Plus calculations of the delta-V vector, actually the situation will require at least two maneuvers.


----------



## gslater

This is just my uninformed opinion but it sounds like this sat wasn't owned by Dish but was going to be a lease. Perhaps they can get it into a high enough orbit using the maneuvering thrusters but if that significantly shortens the life of the satellite, I doubt they would do it. If it were owned by Dish they may decide the opportunity for growth was worth it but since it is owned by a third party, the bottom line will be what they can get from the insurance company if they scuttle it vs. what they can recoup in lease fees over the shortened life of the satellite. In that case, if I were the owning company, I'd opt for the insurance money.


----------



## James Long

Lincoln6Echo said:


> What good would that have done us 129 sat users?


You are in Southern Illinois (per profile)? ... who knows if you would have been a 129° customer or would have a repoint to 61.5° after AMC-14 got into place and (independently) spotbeams on E12 began to light up. (E12 has spots for St Louis and Kansas City and has applied for the uplink license.)



phrelin said:


> They need something short and repetitive, like turning on a national a week, each time adding a few seconds to the Frank Caliendo DVR ad saying "of course Dish has the HD channels _*you*_ want like XXX channel",


Getting into a channel by channel fight is not a good idea. DISH continues to advertise that they have the (unqualified) "most HD" and "best HD" ... the truth of that issues that could be discussed in another thread (with, I expect, heavy involvement by the DirecTV customers who like such arguments).

With all due respect, DISH needs to stay vague. They don't want the common man looking at a channel list and saying "OK, they added Sci-Fi this week ... what else do they have?". They want the common man feeling good about the lineup as it stands ... and when they are ready for a KO punch of a dozen new channels they can deliver it.



> Of course us geeks here will grumble - not what _*I*_ want - but the OTA American viewing public is headed for the 2009 digital switchover. Dish needs something in addition to the DVR ads that essentially gives a subliminal message that Dish, DirecTV and your cable company are all doing the same thing about HD channels, so don't be fooled by the ads. Plus we have this cool DVR.


I believe they are doing that with their current marketing messages. I have not seen many of the "best HD" ads since Frank hit the air in ads.

Personally I believe DISH is (in part) following the marketing plan of 2005 where they intentionally scaled back their promotion of HD knowing that a new system (in that case, MPEG4 and the ViP receivers) was coming. Perhaps later this week or month DISH will make a change (it _is_ still the weekend and there _are_ still unknowns about AMC-14).

AMC-14 is not dead yet ... nor is DISH Network's plans. Be patient.


----------



## booger

DirecTV-Sub said:


> Very naive statement. HD is THE growth part of the entire TV industry. The lowest churm, the highest average monthly bill, the subs EVERY provider is targeting right now.
> 
> Without new HD sub growth, any provider will lose to the competition. I think it's time for you to be a little less 'partial'.


I have to agree with you about HD. Direct's sub's increased quite a bit and they, including Dish recognized this.

Also, going to the past and mentioning how Dish was the HD leader for some time, bla bla bla is a waste of time. Back then, where could anyone go? Not FIOS, not Direct, and certainly not cable for HD. NOW, people have a choice. That's the difference this time around.


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> ... and when they are ready for a KO punch of a dozen new channels they can deliver it.
> 
> Personally I believe DISH is (in part) following the marketing plan of 2005 where they intentionally scaled back their promotion of HD knowing that a new system (in that case, MPEG4 and the ViP receivers) was coming. Perhaps later this week or month DISH will make a change (it _is_ still the weekend and there _are_ still unknowns about AMC-14).
> 
> AMC-14 is not dead yet ... nor is DISH Network's plans. Be patient.


Patience is a virtue, but not one of mine. I'd rather they not wait for the dozen. Maybe the seven uplinked?

Do we know how many MPEG2-only HD receivers Dish has out there - do you think its less than a thousand?


----------



## Stephen J

Can the entire country see 105? If so, why not put all national HD channels at 105, and then use the wing (61.5 and 129) for HD LiLs?


----------



## phrelin

Unfortunately, what the country can "see" and what individual customers can "see" aren't the same. If you are a normal Dish customer, presumably you can "see" 110 and 119. Which raises thoughts.....


----------



## harmil2

My concern is that DISH with take the sat that was to replace the wobbly one at 129 degrees by the end of the year and then put it somewhere else. I live on the pacific NW coast and just cancelled Cinemax and Starz because I am tired of the picture cutting out every 20-30 minutes. This happens with other HD channels on 129 including all VOOM channels...even with a separate 23" dish. I don't think the current 62 degree sat has such problems?


----------



## James Long

The sat going to 129° is being launched by the Canadian company that owns license to that slot. Don't worry about DISH 'borrowing' it for another location.


----------



## cartrivision

Lincoln6Echo said:


> Did anybody see this portion of the article?
> 
> What good would that have done us 129 sat users?


If E* is currently using a satellite capable of CONUS coverage to provide any east coast locals, some of that CONUS capacity could have been freed up by moving the east coast locals off of the CONUS sat to the new sat if the launch of the new sat had been successful.

This is just speculation. I don't know how E* uses their current satellite constellation to provide all of their current coverage.


----------



## cartrivision

inkahauts said:


> They will compete easily with Directv... Because they are competing with Directv for cable customers, not each others...


That statement makes no sense. If this launch failure significantly affects E* ability to offer an attractive HD lineup in comparison to DirecTV (which it may or may not do), then DirecTV will get a larger part of the growth that comes from defecting cable customers. I don't see how the fact that E* and DirecTV are competing for cable 's customers makes E* and DirecTV any less of competitors against each other, in fact it's just the opposite.


----------



## BNUMM

AsiaSat3 was saved in 1998 and according to Lynsat is still working. That is at least 9 years. So why would saving AMC14 only make it good for 3 to 5 years?


----------



## cartrivision

Shellback X 23 said:


> I was just thinking about the possibility of slowly kicking the satellite up to the proper orbital height if the final stage can be fired up again. It all depends on where it is now vs. where it needs to be. Also how much fuel is in the satellite its self for orbital changes that might be used for gaining altitude?


There is more to the current problem than just the altitude of the satellite. The satellite is probably still in an inclined orbit as opposed to an equatorial orbit, so just slowly increasing it to it's proper altitude won't do it any good. That's why in their attempt to recover from a similar launch failure ten years ago, Hughes sent their satellite from the failed launch all the way around the moon... because that was the only way to change it's orbital plane to an equatorial orbit with the available fuel on board.


----------



## P Smith

The orbit parameters has been posted a few times: 51 degree incl, ~800/27000km.


----------



## cartrivision

BNUMM said:


> AsiaSat3 was saved in 1998 and according to Lynsat is still working. That is at least 9 years. So why would saving AMC14 only make it good for 3 to 5 years?


What is now called ASIASAT3 is not the salvaged satellite from the launch failure of ten years ago. That salvaged sat was renamed HGS1, and then renamed PAS 22, and moved to 60° W. It is now listed on Lingsat as HGS1 again, and it is currently listed as being in an unstable orbit, moving 0.3° east per day.


----------



## cartrivision

P Smith said:


> The orbit parameters has been posted a few times: 51 degree incl, ~800/27000km.


That's what I suspected. That's more than just a slight inclined orbit. Wonder if they will try the trip around the moon like Hughes used ten years ago.


----------



## tedb3rd

I was watching the promo video before the launch and saw where the engineers posed for a photograph in front of the rocket... I thought that one engineer (that was wearing the DirecTV shirt) had a peculiar grin!!


----------



## BNUMM

cartrivision said:


> What is now called ASIASAT3 is not the salvaged satellite from the launch failure of ten years ago. That salvaged sat was renamed HGS1, and then renamed PAS 22, and moved to 60° W. It is now listed on Lingsat as HGS1 again, and it is currently listed as being in an unstable orbit, moving 0.3° east per day.


Thanks for the correction. Do you know how long the saved satellite lasted after recovery?


----------



## mechanicman

This just bites the big one! I currently use a 6 foot dish to get 61.5 as i am in caribbean, and the signal on some of the voom hd transponders is just too low to get a picture. This was one launch i was counting on.


----------



## cartrivision

BNUMM said:


> Thanks for the correction. Do you know how long the saved satellite lasted after recovery?


I don't know. I did a quick Google search and didn't find anything that said how long it lasted in it's geostationary position before it became unstable.


----------



## JohnH

DiSH Network filed a relevant 8-K this morning.

http://dish.client.shareholder.com/secfiling.cfm?filingid=950134-08-4856

Item 8.01. Other Events.

On March 14, 2008, a Proton launch vehicle carrying the SES Americom AMC-14 satellite experienced an anomaly which left the satellite in a lower orbit than planned. While further testing will be necessary, the satellite appears to be functional. Engineers from SES Americom and Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the satellite, are exploring options to potentially bring AMC-14 into its proper orbit. If those efforts are successful, station keeping fuel would be required to correct the orbit, so the service life of the satellite would be substantially reduced. 
We intended to lease the entire capacity of the satellite from EchoStar Corporation in order to, among other things, increase the number of high definition channels we offer. Therefore, the launch anomaly will result in a delay in our roll out of some high definition channels, including some local network channels.


----------



## rey_1178

Good Stuff John H


----------



## charlesrshell

EchoStar had one too.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/SATS/255286983x0xS950134-08-4855/1415404/950134-08-4855.pdf


----------



## Stephen J

JohnH said:


> DiSH Network filed a relevant 8-K this morning.
> 
> http://dish.client.shareholder.com/secfiling.cfm?filingid=950134-08-4856
> 
> Item 8.01. Other Events.
> 
> On March 14, 2008, a Proton launch vehicle carrying the SES Americom AMC-14 satellite experienced an anomaly which left the satellite in a lower orbit than planned. While further testing will be necessary, the satellite appears to be functional. Engineers from SES Americom and Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the satellite, are exploring options to potentially bring AMC-14 into its proper orbit. If those efforts are successful, station keeping fuel would be required to correct the orbit, so the service life of the satellite would be substantially reduced.
> We intended to lease the entire capacity of the satellite from EchoStar Corporation in order to, among other things, increase the number of high definition channels we offer. Therefore, the launch anomaly will result in a delay in our roll out of some high definition channels, including some local network channels.


Hopefully the some local network channels that they are talking about are not the ones that were recently uplinked to E12, to be made available this April


----------



## Mr-Rick

Stephen J said:


> Can the entire country see 105? If so, why not put all national HD channels at 105, and then use the wing (61.5 and 129) for HD LiLs?


Most people only want ONE dish on their house; the smaller the better. The mention of a second dish turns off 80% of my prospective customers. They need a one dish solution. The one thing that has upset me with DISH is this constant satellite "juggling". Right now HD is at 129, national SD at 110/119, Foreign programming at 118.7 but used to be 121 or 61.5. We had some Cleveland locals at 61.5 years ago so a second dish was needed for that then the locals moved to 110.

DISH needs to have something like four orbital locations. The east coast would see three of the four and the west coast would see the other three out of four.

Example: 105, 110, 119, 129

105 would carry all locals for the east coast SD and HD
110/119 would carry all national SD and HD programming... Top 250, HD, etc.
129 would carry all locals for the west coast SD and HD

In my example above, the east coast folks would get ONE dish that see 105, 110, and 119. The west coast folks would get one dish that sees 110, 119, and 129.

(Granted 129 is a bit flaky at the moment but fix it so it is a viable location/solution)


----------



## TBoneit

Stephen J said:


> Can the entire country see 105? If so, why not put all national HD channels at 105, and then use the wing (61.5 and 129) for HD LiLs?


One reason could the cost of fitting all current HD subscribers with new Dishes to see 105.

Another reason could be they do not have warehouses full of the proper dish, nor the extra labor force required to do the changeover in a timely fashion.


----------



## BNUMM

Part of Michigan does not work on the 105 sat. Grand Rapids/ Kalamazoo locals were originally scheduled to go on 105 sat but were put on the 119 sat and then moved to the 110 sat. The 105 sat. only worked for the very southern counties in western Michigan.


----------



## rotomike

Mr-Rick said:


> Most people only want ONE dish on their house; the smaller the better. The mention of a second dish turns off 80% of my prospective customers. They need a one dish solution. The one thing that has upset me with DISH is this constant satellite "juggling". Right now HD is at 129, national SD at 110/119, Foreign programming at 118.7 but used to be 121 or 61.5. We had some Cleveland locals at 61.5 years ago so a second dish was needed for that then the locals moved to 110.
> 
> DISH needs to have something like four orbital locations. The east coast would see three of the four and the west coast would see the other three out of four.
> 
> Example: 105, 110, 119, 129
> 
> 105 would carry all locals for the east coast SD and HD
> 110/119 would carry all national SD and HD programming... Top 250, HD, etc.
> 129 would carry all locals for the west coast SD and HD
> 
> In my example above, the east coast folks would get ONE dish that see 105, 110, and 119. The west coast folks would get one dish that sees 110, 119, and 129.
> 
> (Granted 129 is a bit flaky at the moment but fix it so it is a viable location/solution)


i totally agree. im in new England and we need the 61.5 for HD and most people have been going with HD so 2 dishes are done often. Why cant they do like direct and make a 108 and 112 with one LNB hitting all 108,110,112 and another for the 119 and one for the 105 so one dish would hit 5 birds like DTV.

mike


----------



## davisdog

fyi...SeaLaunch just announced they have delayed the Launch of the new Directv-11 Satellite that was supposed to happen today. Not much information yet on the reason for the delay (undisclosed technical issue) nor the length of the delay (TBD)


----------



## Sixto

davisdog said:


> fyi...SeaLaunch just announced they have delayed the Launch of the new Directv-11 Satellite that was supposed to happen today. Not much information yet on the reason for the delay (undisclosed technical issue) nor the length of the delay (TBD)


rumor has it scheduled now for wednesday ... rocket now back out of the hangar ... http://www.navigon.net/sl/pictures/


----------



## alxlevin

March 17, 2008 -- Princeton, NJ -- SES AMERICOM, an SES company (Euronext Paris and Luxembourg Stock Exchange: SESG), today confirmed that its AMC-14 satellite failed to reach its intended orbit following its launch on board a Russian Proton Breeze-M launch vehicle on March 15. An anomaly during the second burn of the fourth stage of the rocket resulted in the satellite being placed short of the planned geostationary transfer orbit.

"While we are not in a position to comment on the possible causes of this launch anomaly, the satellite is healthy and is operating nominally in a stable orbit under the control of Lockheed Martin. SES and Lockheed Martin engineers are currently exploring various options for bringing AMC-14 into its proper geostationary orbit," said Martin Halliwell, President of SES ENGINEERING.

AMC-14 was built by Lockheed Martin Commercial Space Systems, with launch services from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan provided by ILS (International Launch Services).

In all of the various scenarios to redirect the spacecraft, onboard fuel will have to be used to propel the satellite to its correct orbital position, thereby reducing its service life. SES’ investment in AMC-14 is insured for partial and total loss.

The spacecraft is entirely contracted by EchoStar Corporation and is intended to operate at the orbital position of 61.5 degrees West.

"We are confident that the engineering teams at Lockheed Martin and SES will find a way to place AMC-14 into the correct orbit in a manner that our customer’s requirements can be met," said Edward Horowitz, President and CEO of SES AMERICOM. "We cannot, at this time, speculate on the impact of the orbit raising activities on both the in-service date and the service life of AMC-14. We will provide additional information in due time."


----------



## peak_reception

charlesrshell's link to the EchoStar statement did contain information not explicitly available in the other filings:



> We are not obligated to make any monthly lease payments to SES Americom unless the satellite is successfully placed into commercial operation. We also made significant up front payments with respect to the satellite prior to launch, substantially all of which are covered by insurance we procured.


 The insurance angle for E*.

And some encouragement from the SES statement supplied by alxlevin: 


> "We are confident that the engineering teams at Lockheed Martin and SES will find a way to place AMC-14 into the correct orbit in a manner that our customer's requirements can be met," said Edward Horowitz, President and CEO of SES AMERICOM.


Let's hope.


----------



## Stephen J

Stephen J said:


> Hopefully the some local network channels that they are talking about are not the ones that were recently uplinked to E12, to be made available this April


I noticed too, that the HD RSNs have not been uplinked to 61.5 yet for the markets that will have the LiLs from 61.5 Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland. I hope that the AMC 14 problem doesn't prevent them from doing that. It would be a shame to have the Locals in HD, but not the RSN.


----------



## neomaine

Stephen J said:


> I noticed too, that the HD RSNs have not been uplinked to 61.5 yet for the markets that will have the LiLs from 61.5 Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland. I hope that the AMC 14 problem doesn't prevent them from doing that. It would be a shame to have the Locals in HD, but not the RSN.


Disappointing, true. But having HD locals would be a wonderful leap forward...


----------



## rtd2

The International Launch Service's rocket launch from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan experienced unspecified problems in mid-flight and left the satellite at a lower orbital altitude.

*Firing the satellite's own motors might succeed in raising AMC-14 to its desired height, EchoStar said, but that could consume its on-board fuel and leave the orbiter with a much shorter lifespan than was planned.*

EchoStar is not obligated to pay its monthly lease to Americom if the satellite cannot go into service, EchoStar's filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission said. While insurance will cover the expense of building and launching the satellite, Dish Network and EchoStar may miss revenue opportunities by not having the AMC-14 capacity.

Denver Business Journal

http://www.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2008/03/17/daily4.html?ana=from_rss

Looks like they MIGHT get it into proper orbit but at a Lifespan cost?


----------



## Stephen J

rtd2 said:


> The International Launch Service's rocket launch from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan experienced unspecified problems in mid-flight and left the satellite at a lower orbital altitude.
> 
> *Firing the satellite's own motors might succeed in raising AMC-14 to its desired height, EchoStar said, but that could consume its on-board fuel and leave the orbiter with a much shorter lifespan than was planned.*
> 
> EchoStar is not obligated to pay its monthly lease to Americom if the satellite cannot go into service, EchoStar's filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission said. While insurance will cover the expense of building and launching the satellite, Dish Network and EchoStar may miss revenue opportunities by not having the AMC-14 capacity.
> 
> Denver Business Journal
> 
> http://www.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2008/03/17/daily4.html?ana=from_rss
> 
> Looks like they MIGHT get it into proper orbit but at a Lifespan cost?


How long would it take to get it into the proper orbit if they used the onboard fule to thrust it into position? Are talking weeks or months?


----------



## Kheldar

rtd2 said:


> Looks like they MIGHT get it into proper orbit but at a Lifespan cost?


Better a shorter lifespan than no lifespan at all, right? At least if they can get this bird up and running for a couple years, it buys them time to build and launch a new satellite to replace it. Then they can throw it away once they get the replacement launched.


----------



## Paul Secic

Gilitar said:


> This looks like a very bad blow to Dish Network. They have already gotten behind Directv and now this. The next couple of years are going to be very tough on them.
> 
> Everything I read seems to indicate that it takes approximately two years to build a launch a satellite. Saying that how can they compete with Directv?


Relax, Lockhead is working on a solution. It isn't lost just yet.


----------



## Paul Secic

TBoneit said:


> One reason could the cost of fitting all current HD subscribers with new Dishes to see 105.
> 
> Another reason could be they do not have warehouses full of the proper dish, nor the extra labor force required to do the changeover in a timely fashion.


Hire those poor people from that investment company that went belly up today to install dishes. Just a thought..


----------



## Tom Robertson

Stephen J said:


> How long would it take to get it into the proper orbit if they used the onboard fule to thrust it into position? Are talking weeks or months?


Possibly a few weeks to a couple of months. With Asiasat-3/HGS-1/PAS-22, Hughes sent it around the moon and back twice to get the orbit they wanted which took about 3 months once they started the process. Lots of insurance and title wrangling before they even had permission/ownership.

Luckily the insurance company accepted a total failure payout, assumed ownership, then sold it to Hughes fairly quickly for a percent of the business opportunity.

The hope might be a moon flyby leaving AMC-14 with the most fuel for station-keeping. The risk is that some components might not be ready for the heating/cooling cycles of that maneuver. Asiasat 3 didn't deploy one of its solar wings, apparently due to the unexpected moon flyby heating/cooling.

Some satellite builders have given to some consideration that this maneuver might be necessary, perhaps AMC-14 is designed to make this trip. (I haven't found any evidence that designers seriously did or did not add lunar flyby into their designs. I do know it has been discussed in the trade press that more should.)

*Lunar Flyby LifeSpan*
In researching Asiasat-3 now HGS-1, once it returned from the moon the second time, was able to provide maritime relay service for 3 years and made a profit for Hughes. BUT (note, that is a big but) maritime relay service did not require the precise stationkeeping that satellite to the home does.

Zooming forward from 1998 to 2008, AMC-14 might be able to make one flyby and settle the first time. They now have the experience to perhaps get it more likely right. That "should", I'm hoping/guessing leave enough fuel for true station keeping at a suitable slot for Dish for "long enough" that SES can get some revenues, get a new bird ordered, and Dish can continue with their plans. Possibly with almost no delay if all goes well.

The biggest delay? Might be the Insurance Company/SES/Dish wrangles to decide how to play this. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## HIPAR

Stephen J said:


> How long would it take to get it into the proper orbit if they used the onboard fule to thrust it into position? Are talking weeks or months?


Remember DirecTV 10? Its successful launch from Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan aboard an Enhanced Proton Breeze-M rocket was almost an identical profile to what was intended for AMC-14.

It was launched last July 7th and didn't begin service for the viewers until late in October. So it required more than three months to get it on station and be readied. Assuming AMC-14 will be saved, I wouldn't expect it to be commissioned any sooner than three to four months from now.

--- CHAS


----------



## Bill R

Tom Robertson said:


> The hope might be a moon flyby leaving AMC-14 with the most fuel for station-keeping.


Because of the orbit that AMC-14 is in my bet is that won't even be considered. Asiasat 3 was in a very low orbit and that is why a moon flyby was required.


----------



## rocatman

HIPAR said:


> Remember DirecTV 10? Its successful launch from Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan aboard an Enhanced Proton Breeze-M rocket was almost an identical profile to what was intended for AMC-14.
> 
> It was launched last July 7th and didn't begin service for the viewers until late in October. So it required more than three months to get it on station and be readied. Assuming AMC-14 will be saved, I wouldn't expect it to be commissioned any sooner than three to four months from now.
> 
> --- CHAS


In checking out the DirecTV-10 satellite, problems were found with some of its spotbeam capabilities and this was the reason it took so long to get the satellite operational so the comparison to AMC-14 in terms of the time between launch and getting it operational is not valid.


----------



## rotomike

Im going with July 4th on this one if it gets running at all.

Mike


----------



## Sixto

Tom Robertson said:


> Possibly a few weeks to a couple of months ...


Tom, Thanks for all the education. Facinating stuff!

From a layman's perspective, it's a shame that there isn't some way to refuel these puppies ... send up a shuttle mission to re-fuel all the sats that need help!


----------



## dms1

Sixto said:


> From a layman's perspective, it's a shame that there isn't some way to refuel these puppies ... send up a shuttle mission to re-fuel all the sats that need help!


Shuttle maximum altitude - 960 km
Geostationary satellite altitude - ~37000 km

Spot the problem with the idea of a refueling mission? I'm sure many people don't realize just how low in relative terms the space shuttle operates at. The ISS is even lower - around 400 km.


----------



## DIRECTV-11

Don't underestimate the skill of the engineers or the heart of the mighty satellite AMC-14. Anyone remember Apollo 13?


----------



## Sixto

dms1 said:


> Shuttle maximum altitude - 960 km
> Geostationary satellite altitude - ~37000 km
> 
> Spot the problem with the idea of a refueling mission? I'm sure many people don't realize just how low in relative terms the space shuttle operates at. The ISS is even lower - around 400 km.


Very interesting.

Mark be down as one who had no idea of the altitude difference.


----------



## Kheldar

Sixto said:


> Very interesting.
> 
> Mark be down as one who had no idea of the altitude difference.


+1


----------



## Sixto

"We are confident that the engineering teams at Lockheed Martin and SES will find a way to place AMC-14 into the correct orbit in a manner that our customer’s requirements can be met ..."

I guess it depends on Echostar's contract but if they're leasing the satellite then maybe now they just lease it for less time ... and SES has to deal with the revenue loss after the new useful life of the satellite.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Sixto said:


> "We are confident that the engineering teams at Lockheed Martin and SES will find a way to place AMC-14 into the correct orbit in a manner that our customer's requirements can be met ..."
> 
> I guess it depends on Echostar's contract but if they're leasing the satellite then maybe now they just lease it for less time ... and SES has to deal with the revenue loss after the new useful life of the satellite.


Lately in this industry it boils down to how the insurance companies wish to minimize their losses and how creative they are at finding ways to accomplish that.

Asiasat-3/HSG-1/PAS-22 was the first (and only that I'm aware of) where the insurance company paid out completely, took title of the spacecraft and sold it. Hughes purchased it and made money for them and for the insurance company. Not enough to recover the payout, I don't believe; yet enough to significantly soften the blow.

More recently a couple of satellite failures considered going this same route, but the companies involved (apparently) didn't go for it.

Dish (aka echostar in this case) might have the influence and vision to make a lunar flyby a viable option with the insurers.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## cartrivision

Tom Robertson said:


> In researching Asiasat-3 now HGS-1, once it returned from the moon the second time, was able to provide maritime relay service for 3 years and made a profit for Hughes. BUT (note, that is a big but) maritime relay service did not require the precise stationkeeping that satellite to the home does.


Tom, do you know if HGS-1 ever achieved a "normal" stable geostationary orbit (or if they even tried to achieve such an exact geostationary orbit)?


----------



## davisdog

cartrivision said:


> Tom, do you know if HGS-1 ever achieved a "normal" stable geostationary orbit (or if they even tried to achieve such an exact geostationary orbit)?


HGS-1 was successfully put into a "geosynchronous" orbit, which is where most comsat's are (geostationary, is when they are exactly over the equator (0deg)..most are just geosynch since the drift +/- 0 deg, but go around in a 24hr orbit still...less fuel required). It's life was shortened because it spent so much fuel going to the moona nd back (twice) and they didnt have much fuel left to keep it in it's proper location for the full planned life)....

They havent seen exactly where AMC-14 is but it may be a little higher (which helps) but the inclination (tilt to the equator) is the hardest part to correct (which was 51.5 degrees when it was launched because it came out of Russia/Ukraine. I believe the 3rd burn was to be the key to flattening the orbit down towards the equator.

HGS was at 51deg inclination also and that's primarily why they used the moon to build up the inertial to flatten out the orbit (bring down the inclination)


----------



## Tom Robertson

cartrivision said:


> Tom, do you know if HGS-1 ever achieved a "normal" stable geostationary orbit (or if they even tried to achieve such an exact geostationary orbit)?





davisdog said:


> HGS-1 was successfully put into a "geosynchronous" orbit, which is where most comsat's are (geostationary, is when they are exactly over the equator (0deg)..most are just geosynch since the drift +/- 0 deg, but go around in a 24hr orbit still...less fuel required). It's life was shortened because it spent so much fuel going to the moona nd back (twice) and they didnt have much fuel left to keep it in it's proper location for the full planned life)....
> 
> They havent seen exactly where AMC-14 is but it may be a little higher (which helps) but the inclination (tilt to the equator) is the hardest part to correct (which was 51.5 degrees when it was launched because it came out of Russia/Ukraine. I believe the 3rd burn was to be the key to flattening the orbit down towards the equator.
> 
> HGS was at 51deg inclination also and that's primarily why they used the moon to build up the inertial to flatten out the orbit (bring down the inclination)


My readings imply it was "close" to normal geosynchronous orbit but was not taken to a fully flat 0° inclination. I don't know if that was by choice or by lack of fuel. By letting it drift more it could use less fuel and live a longer life. But that also limited its uses.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## rtd2

rotomike said:


> Im going with July 4th on this one if it gets running at all.
> 
> Mike


Just hope I dont hear they are calling in the US NAVY


----------



## Kheldar

E* press release:


> DISH Network(r) Corporation (Nasdaq: DISH), the nation's third-largest pay-TV provider, today confirmed that plans to enhance its HD programming line-up this spring remain on track, despite the launch anomaly experienced by the AMC-14 satellite on March 14.
> 
> Over the next two months, DISH Network will increase its local HD offering by more than 60 percent with the addition of HD broadcast networks in the following markets:
> 
> April
> -----
> * Abilene, TX
> * Austin, TX
> * Baltimore, MD
> * Columbia, SC
> * Flint-Saginaw-Bay City, MI
> * Ft. Myers, FL
> * Greensboro, NC
> * Milwaukee, WI
> * Orlando, FL
> * Providence, RI
> * Tampa, FL
> * West Palm Beach, FL
> 
> May
> ------
> * Beaumont, TX
> * Burlington, VT
> * Grand Rapids, MI
> * Green Bay, WI
> * Greenville, SC
> * Huntsville, AL
> * Knoxville, TN
> * Norfolk, VA
> * Richmond, VA
> 
> "DISH Network customers can be reassured that the expansion of our HD programming over the next few months will proceed as planned," said Charlie Ergen, Chairman, CEO and President of DISH Network. "We are fortunate to have two more satellites scheduled for launch later this year to continue our HD rollout and reach our year-end goal of 100 local HD markets and 100 national HD channels."
> 
> Upcoming national HD announcements may include the addition of ABC Family HD, AMC HD, BET HD, The Biography Channel HD, Bravo HD, Cartoon Network HD, CMT HD, CNN HD, Disney Channel HD, ESPN News HD, HBO2 HD, IFC HD, MGM HD, MoreMAX HD, MTV HD, Nickelodeon HD, Sci-Fi HD, Smithsonian Channel HD, Starz Edge HD, Tennis Channel HD, Superstation WGN HD, The Weather Channel HD, Toon Disney HD, USA Network HD and VH-1 HD.


----------



## James Long

:joy: :joy: :joy: :joy: :joy: 
It is nice when the company is as optimistic as the people who follow them. 

(New locals discussion here please ...

Leaving this thread for AMC-14 salvage and general effects on HD rollout discussion.)


----------



## phrelin

James, that news release implies that they didn't need a new satellite to provide 21 locals and at least the 7 already uplinked nationals.

While I am happy about that, isn't this announcing an alternative plan that could have been accomplished earlier from a technical standpoint (ignoring contract issues)?

In other words, turning the engineers loose on reorganizing transponders, moving satellites, etc. is saving someone's bacon? Something that should have been done earlier as Plan B?


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> James, that news release implies that they didn't need a new satellite to provide 21 locals and at least the 7 already uplinked nationals.
> 
> While I am happy about that, isn't this announcing an alternative plan that could have been accomplished earlier from a technical standpoint (ignoring contract issues)?
> 
> In other words, turning the engineers loose on reorganizing transponders, moving satellites, etc. is saving someone's bacon? Something that should have been done earlier as Plan B?


I don't see this as an alternative plan. I doubt if a single channel will end up in a different location than was planned months ago when this was all planned out.

One technical to check would be if DISH has permission to uplink the E12 spotbeams. We know that they applied for permission to use the new uplink centers ... I have not checked back to see approvals. Unless they are using an existing center that already had permission to uplink to 61.5° that legal complication slows things down.

The seven plus "unavailable" HDs were there long before AMC-14 launched. They certainly were not rushed to the uplink to make up for AMC-14's problems.


----------



## rocatman

James Long said:


> I don't see this as an alternative plan. I doubt if a single channel will end up in a different location than was planned months ago when this was all planned out.
> 
> One technical to check would be if DISH has permission to uplink the E12 spotbeams. We know that they applied for permission to use the new uplink centers ... I have not checked back to see approvals. Unless they are using an existing center that already had permission to uplink to 61.5° that legal complication slows things down.
> 
> The seven plus "unavailable" HDs were there long before AMC-14 launched. They certainly were not rushed to the uplink to make up for AMC-14's problems.


I believe as of today, all the FCC requests for the uplink centers to be used for E-12 spotbeams have been approved. I don't think Dish needs a new request to use the E-12 spotbeams.


----------



## James Long

rocatman said:


> I believe as of today, all the FCC requests for the uplink centers to be used for E-12 spotbeams have been approved. I don't think Dish needs a new request to use the E-12 spotbeams.


Thanks and I agree ... the permission that DISH/EchoStar requested was broad enough to cover everything they will need. Use of spotbeams on the satellite should have been part of the original Rainbow DBS authorization (as a capability of the satellite).

I just had not checked to see if the uplinks made it to approval ... hearing a yes is more good news!


----------



## phrelin

Ok, now I'm confused. I thought AMC-14 was needed to "move ConUS feeds off of the transponders at 61.5° that they need to convert to SpotBeam as well as for new national HD from 61.5°."


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> Ok, now I'm confused. I thought AMC-14 was needed to "move ConUS feeds off of the transponders at 61.5° that they need to convert to SpotBeam as well as for new national HD from 61.5°."


I'm not saying that 100% of what they were planning on doing will get done before AMC-14 or other relief for E3 gets to 61.5° ... just that the channels they are able to put up are part of the plan ... not some mad dash scramble in reaction to a bad day above Baikonur.

*In the news:*
http://www.ilslaunch.com/amc-14-letter-to-customers/
*TO: ILS Customers
SUBJECT: Unsuccessful Proton Launch of AMC-14; Initial Status Report*
I would like to convey what information we have available following the unfortunate failure of the Proton Breeze M to place the AMC-14 spacecraft into the planned orbit on 15 March. This is obviously a significant disappointment for ILS. We share the disappointment with SES AMERICOM, LMCSS (manufacturer of the AMC-14 spacecraft), the end-user EchoStar, and the many others who contributed to this mission. We have extended our apologies to all who worked hard to make this mission happen.​http://www.ilslaunch.com/proton-return-to-flight-communication/
*State Commission Led by Vladimir Rachouk*
As announced early morning Tuesday, March 18, 2008, Vladimir Rachouk will lead the Russian State Investigation Committee as Chairman. He is currently the General Director of KBKChA (Design Bureau of Chemical Automatics), Voronezh. The design bureau located together with Voronezh Mechanical Plant, manufactures the Proton second and third stage main engines. This committee will serve as the primary evaluation team to determine the cause of the anomaly. The first formal meeting was conducted early afternoon Tuesday, 18 March.

*Failure Review Oversight Board Formed*
ILS is finalizing the selection of members for the Failure Oversight Review Board (FROB). In accordance with standard industry practices, the FROB will review the findings of the Russian State Commission's investigation and its corrective action plan.

The board will be chaired by Jim Bonner, ILS Vice President of Operations and CTO. Kevin Sloan, ILS launch operations director, will serve as the executive secretary. The remaining members will be comprised of industry specialists, participants from the affected mission and the return to flight mission campaigns, as well as an insurance industry representative.​


----------



## rotomike

"DISH Network customers can be reassured that the expansion of our HD programming over the next few months will proceed as planned," 

I hardly doubt that its going as planned unless they planned for a failure on that 61.5


----------



## Kheldar

rotomike said:


> "DISH Network customers can be reassured that the expansion of our HD programming over the next few months will proceed as planned,"
> 
> I hardly doubt that its going as planned unless they planned for a failure on that 61.5


Note that quote says "over the next few months". Well, AMC-14 wasn't going to be ready for a few months.

So, their plans "over the next few months" might not be changing, but for a few months _after that_ (when AMC-14 was supposed to be coming on-line), I'm sure it is changing.


----------



## rotomike

AMC-14 would have been ready in 2 months and i would call a few months more like 4 to 11 months. Thats just me.

mike


----------



## James Long

The planned in service date filed with the FCC for AMC-14 was May 15th.

The list of local market releases given Monday were for April through June.
Today's list is April and May. AMC-14 didn't slow those down one bit.


----------



## bartendress

Kheldar said:


> Note that quote says "over the next few months". Well, AMC-14 wasn't going to be ready for a few months. ... ... ...


IAWTC- Words mean things. That bird was not going to contribute in the near term.

OAN- I sure hope they can figure out a way to maneuver AMC-14 into it's slot. I think the odds are better given where it was, within the launch time-line, when the anomaly occurred.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Don't believe everything you read.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5628401.html


----------



## James Long

HobbyTalk said:


> Don't believe everything you read.
> 
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5628401.html


Looks like something written by a DirecTV 'shill'. 

The press release should clear up the early guessing from the SEC filing.


----------



## cartrivision

James Long said:


> Looks like something written by a DirecTV 'shill'.
> 
> The press release should clear up the early guessing from the SEC filing.


LOL. I've got to give you credit for your flowery visions while wearing your rose colored glasses, but there was no "early guessing" based on the SEC filing that had to be cleared up. The SEC filing is factual and more realistic than that fairy tale press release from DISH that laughably asserts that the launch failure will have no material effect on their plans to roll out more HD. The press release was nothing but an attempt to put a public relations spin on the situation for the purpose of calming and reassuring potential DISH customers.

If you want the truth, look to the SEC filing where DISH is bound by law to tell the truth to their investors (a document that clearly and unambiguously states, "the launch anomaly will result in a delay in our roll out of some high definition channels, including some local network channels"), rather than putting your trust in some PR spin that tries to imply that the launch failure will have no actual effect on DISH's future HD rollout plans.


----------



## James Long

Whatever ...

Here is another will for you:


> Over the next two months, DISH Network *will* increase its local HD offering by more than 60 percent with the addition of HD broadcast networks in the following markets.


DISH realized that some people were misreading their SEC filing and assuming the situation was worse than it really is. They clarified ... publicly ... with a nice list of locals that *will* be launched over the next couple of months (April and May).

No flowery visions. A nice clean statement. Come back in June if they blow it.

They didn't claim there would be 'no effect' ... only that the upgrades would remain on track.


----------



## cartrivision

James Long said:


> Whatever ...
> 
> Here is another will for you:
> DISH realized that some people were misreading their SEC filing and assuming the situation was worse than it really is. They clarified ... publicly ... with a nice list of locals that *will* be launched over the next couple of months (April and May).
> 
> No flowery visions. A nice clean statement. Come back in June if they blow it.
> 
> They didn't claim there would be 'no effect' ... only that the upgrades would remain on track.


A train that has run out of fuel remains "on track" with it's course unaltered, but it won't get to it's destination on time. You need to learn to differentiate between PR doublespeak in press releases and statements of material facts in SEC disclosure documents.

I'm sure that DISH will try to squeeze out every last drop of existing satellite capacity by increasing compression and lowering margins of excess capacity (that under SOP would normally be held in reserve) in order to be able to continue rolling out some additional HD channels to create the illusion that the launch failure wasn't much of a setback in their ability to compete with DirecTV, but despite their recently announced "on track" HD plans, at the very least, DISH's HD train is going to have to start proceeding slowly through an extended section of unstable track.


----------



## scott72

James Long said:


> Whatever ...
> 
> Here is another will for you:
> DISH realized that some people were misreading their SEC filing and assuming the situation was worse than it really is. They clarified ... publicly ... with a nice list of locals that *will* be launched over the next couple of months (April and May).
> 
> No flowery visions. A nice clean statement. Come back in June if they blow it.
> 
> They didn't claim there would be 'no effect' ... only that the upgrades would remain on track.


My cable company says they *will* add new HD channels by a certain date all the time. It never happens. If they were going to add all these HD channels whether the launch was successful or not, then why haven't they added them already? What's the reason for waiting? I think they were totally dependent on a successful launch in order to add new channels, but we'll see.


----------



## rocatman

scott72 said:


> My cable company says they *will* add new HD channels by a certain date all the time. It never happens. If they were going to add all these HD channels whether the launch was successful or not, then why haven't they added them already? What's the reason for waiting? I think they were totally dependent on a successful launch in order to add new channels, but we'll see.


I believe that almost all of the new HD local channels will come from the E-12 satellite spotbeams. To use these spotbeams, several uplink sites are needed and the FCC approval for these uplink sites was just formally published yesterday, 3/18/2008.


----------



## James Long

Thanks for the update ...

DISH isn't Scott's cable company. DISH has their own issues. Guessing at why DISH hasn't already added channels that are uplinked and apparently (from a technical standpoint) ready to watch when your guesses are contrary to the facts is fruitless.

The formal publication of the uplink permissions is a fact ... some real reason that DISH could not offer the spotbeamed locals. That hurdle is now clear and we should be seeing more transponders light up as spot (and, as promised, more HD locals). If someone asks why HD locals were not turned on last month the easiest answer is "DISH was waiting for FCC permission".

We don't have that pat answer for national HD ... but we know it isn't bandwidth. With at least seven channels uplinked and not available DISH has the bandwidth. And we've hashed and rehashed that enough that it should have sunk in.

In any case ... we do have a thread for "ranting" about DISH. Perhaps people should use it?

Let's get back to AMC-14 ...


----------



## JohnH

AMC-14 would have no noticeable affect on the next 2 months, anyway, unless there was a major failure at 61.5. Replacing encoders is apparently a time consuming activity and as Rocatman says, there is finally some authorization for uplink sites. That is the delay in the local HD rollout.


----------



## njblackberry

I guess criticism is discouraged in the DISH forums,.


----------



## Ron Barry

No it is not njblackberry as long as it does not wonder into the trolling or spamming realm. What is not allowed is question moderation in public... That is to be down through PMing any moderator or Admin on this board.


----------



## space86

Will I be able to watch Directv's New Sat Launch on Youtube tomorrow?


----------



## RAD

space86 said:


> Will I be able to watch Directv's New Sat Launch on Youtube tomorrow?


Why wait, SeaLaunch will have a web cast, http://www.boeing.com/special/sea-launch/current_index_webcast.html


----------



## charlesrshell

http://varicast.variview.net/getContent.aspx?WCID=349a9632-ef36-467c-a6a1-f114a5742152#


----------



## James Long

And now ...
:backtotop (AMC-14)


----------



## Steve_53

On-Topic question - has anybody seen any "updates" concerning if / when AMC-14 could be pushed into a useable orbit? I did see (yesterday) some conflicting stories saying that the relocation using on-board fuel was under investigation AND that SES-Americom was planning on filing a total loss claim.


----------



## P Smith

Steve_53 said:


> On-Topic question - has anybody seen any "updates" concerning if / when AMC-14 could be pushed into a useable orbit? I did see (yesterday) some conflicting stories saying that the relocation using on-board fuel was under investigation AND that SES-Americom was planning on filing a total loss claim.


Would be nice if you will post URL of that stories also.


----------



## longrider

I just had a visit from 2 Dish salesman at my business, what they have been told is that putting into place with the onboard fuel is being given very serious consideration. Service life would be 2 - 3 years but that is enough time to build another sat and get it launched.


----------



## EXTACAMO

Why can't a shuttle mission be scheduled to fix this problem. I remember early shuttle missions used to do that sort of thing. I used to like watching the astronauts wrestle those things trying to get them to stop spinning. I guess the ISS has exclusive rights to the shuttle now anyway. And I'm sure no one wants to pay for a shuttle mission just to rescue a wayward satellite so people can watch more HDTV. Now another spy satellite thats a different story. :nono2:


----------



## rocatman

EXTACAMO said:


> Why can't a shuttle mission be scheduled to fix this problem. I remember early shuttle missions used to do that sort of thing. I used to like watching the astronauts wrestle those things trying to get them to stop spinning. I guess the ISS has exclusive rights to the shuttle now anyway. And I'm sure no one wants to pay for a shuttle mission just to rescue a wayward satellite so people can watch more HDTV. Now another spy satellite thats a different story. :nono2:


Besides for extremely limited Shuttle availability and the huge cost to do this, the AMC-14 satellite is in an orbit currently that would be almost impossible for the Shuttle to reach.


----------



## Gilitar

EXTACAMO said:


> Why can't a shuttle mission be scheduled to fix this problem. I remember early shuttle missions used to do that sort of thing. I used to like watching the astronauts wrestle those things trying to get them to stop spinning. I guess the ISS has exclusive rights to the shuttle now anyway. And I'm sure no one wants to pay for a shuttle mission just to rescue a wayward satellite so people can watch more HDTV. Now another spy satellite thats a different story. :nono2:


The shuttle can't get close to the altitude of this satellite.


----------



## cartrivision

Steve_53 said:


> On-Topic question - has anybody seen any "updates" concerning if / when AMC-14 could be pushed into a useable orbit? I did see (yesterday) some conflicting stories saying that the relocation using on-board fuel was under investigation AND that SES-Americom was planning on filing a total loss claim.


In the case if the rescued ASIASAT3 ten years ago, it appears that the bulk of the time between the failed launch and the satellite finally reaching a usable orbit was spent in negotiations with the insurance company, and possibly in waiting for the right window in the lunar cycle to begin the rescue effort. After those delays, it only took about a month to actually reposition the satellite, but when all the delays were added up, it was about 5 months after the launch failure before the satellite reached its corrected orbit.


----------



## eatonjb

you think the hourly rate is high to get your PC work. lets just say, the time of a US asturonut is around 1 MILLION per hour.. I think it would be cheeper to send two sats up at that rate!


----------



## Michael P

I don't think that the Shuttle has ever been even close to the Clarke Belt's 22,500 miles altitude.


----------



## ssmith10pn

> The shuttle can't get close to the altitude of this satellite.


I'm not an expert but I would assume the shuttle could go all the way to the moon if it wanted to. Once the shuttle gets out of Earth's gravity no more fuel is required to maintain velocity.


----------



## cartrivision

ssmith10pn said:


> I'm not an expert but I would assume the shuttle could go all the way to the moon if it wanted to. Once the shuttle gets out of Earth's gravity no more fuel is required to maintain velocity.


There is no such thing as "getting out of Earth's gravity". Even the moon is being pulled toward the Earth by the Earth's gravity. If the moon magically stopped orbiting the Earth, it would crash into the Earth due to the Earth's gravitational pull on the moon.


----------



## scott72

James Long said:


> Thanks for the update ...
> 
> DISH isn't Scott's cable company. DISH has their own issues. Guessing at why DISH hasn't already added channels that are uplinked and apparently (from a technical standpoint) ready to watch when your guesses are contrary to the facts is fruitless.
> 
> The formal publication of the uplink permissions is a fact ... some real reason that DISH could not offer the spotbeamed locals. That hurdle is now clear and we should be seeing more transponders light up as spot (and, as promised, more HD locals). If someone asks why HD locals were not turned on last month the easiest answer is "DISH was waiting for FCC permission".
> 
> We don't have that pat answer for national HD ... but we know it isn't bandwidth. With at least seven channels uplinked and not available DISH has the bandwidth. And we've hashed and rehashed that enough that it should have sunk in.
> 
> In any case ... we do have a thread for "ranting" about DISH. Perhaps people should use it?
> 
> Let's get back to AMC-14 ...


Nobody's ranting. My post had everything to do with AMC-14. I said I don't think they can promise all these new HD channels now that the launch was a failure. Dish said so themselves that the rollout of the HD channels would be affected by the failed launch. Then they come right back and say their previous plans of new HD channels won't be affected. Which is it?


----------



## rotomike

To understand the altitude of things. Space Station is only 285 miles high at the most. If you cut out around the edge of the state of Maine and stood it on its edge, the space station would hit it. Its extremely low. 

The Space shuttle has a maximum altitude of 600 miles. This AMC-14 is up there 17,000 miles give or take. Its tough to get to!

Mike


----------



## HobbyTalk

You need to read each announcement (or filing) closely. The SEC filing more or less talked about the long term effect. The PR announcement had mostly to do with short term plans. i.e. long term = 1+ years, short term = under 1 year.

This temp. bandwidth crunch could actually work in E* favor when signing contracts as they could claim they only have so many channels available... you want to be one of the offered channels, you better come up with a good deal.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

cartrivision said:


> There is no such thing as "getting out of Earth's gravity".


Sure there is... how about that Mars lander? Or what about the space probe that left our solar system?

We most certainly can launch things far and fast enough to escape Earth's pull permanently... it's just that for the purposes of this topic we wouldn't want to as that would defeat the purpose of the satellite 



cartrivision said:


> Even the moon is being pulled toward the Earth by the Earth's gravity. If the moon magically stopped orbiting the Earth, it would crash into the Earth due to the Earth's gravitational pull on the moon.


This, however, is of course true. What was wrong with the original post that you were replying to was that he said something about going to the moon to escape earth's gravity... which isn't quite accurate since, as you point out, the moon is quite effected (as is the earth incidentally).


----------



## Christopher Gould

cartrivision said:


> There is no such thing as "getting out of Earth's gravity". Even the moon is being pulled toward the Earth by the Earth's gravity. If the moon magically stopped orbiting the Earth, it would crash into the Earth due to the Earth's gravitational pull on the moon.


technically the moon is spining away from the earth at a rate of about an inch or two a year


----------



## James Long

scott72 said:


> Dish said so themselves that the rollout of the HD channels would be affected by the failed launch. Then they come right back and say their previous plans of new HD channels won't be affected. Which is it?


Both.

AMC-14 should have absolutely no effect on what DISH was planning for the next two months. Success or failure at launch it was not expected to be in use until May 15th. As stated before, DISH's SEC statement noting 'some' delays was MISUNDERSTOOD by the industry media and others. They read 'some' delays as 'everything is delayed' and portrayed the SEC filing as such. (Just like the naysayers pelting the forums with 'dish is doomed' messages.)

The press release corrected that poor journalistic assumption ... noting that the next two months are not dependent on AMC-14 ... locals _will_ be launched and DISH expects to announce HD nationals from the list they gave. Still on track.

Perhaps three or four months from now DISH will need to adjust their plans if AMC-14 (or a suitable replacement) isn't available. For now they are, as stated, on track.

It would have been nice if the media had not jumped to false conclusions. I'm sure the naysayers will bash DISH for that as well.


----------



## cartrivision

HDMe said:


> Sure there is... how about that Mars lander? Or what about the space probe that left our solar system?
> 
> We most certainly can launch things far and fast enough to escape Earth's pull permanently... it's just that for the purposes of this topic we wouldn't want to as that would defeat the purpose of the satellite


Actually no you can't. You can get close enough to other objects so that their gravitational pull pulls the object away from the Earth more than the Earth's gravitational pull pulls it toward the earth, but no matter where any object is in the universe, the Earth's gravitational pull is *ALWAYS* pulling on it.


----------



## James Long

That sounds so Earthnocentric. :nono:


----------



## cartrivision

James Long said:


> That sounds so Earthnocentric. :nono:


Not so much so when you realize that the same statement is true for the gravity of every other planet in the universe.

The fact is.... gravity sucks... and there is no escaping it.


----------



## James Long

So ... where's Waldo? (er, AMC-14)

Any updates?


----------



## space86

Forgive me if this has been asked already...

Is AMC 14 going to be able to be placed in the proper orbit with the 
Sat own engines?


----------



## cartrivision

space86 said:


> Forgive me if this has been asked already...
> 
> Is AMC 14 going to be able to be placed in the proper orbit with the
> Sat own engines?


It's not known yet if that would be possible and if it will be attempted... only hopes from interested parties that it can and will be done.


----------



## ZBoomer

ssmith10pn said:


> I'm not an expert but I would assume the shuttle could go all the way to the moon if it wanted to. Once the shuttle gets out of Earth's gravity no more fuel is required to maintain velocity.


Nah... shuttle goes approx 17,000 mph to orbit where it does; it takes about 25,000 mph to escape earth's gravity, "escape velocity." The Saturn V rocket could do this, the Shuttle cannot.

It can do low earth orbit only.


----------



## ssmith10pn

ZBoomer said:


> Nah... shuttle goes approx 17,000 mph to orbit where it does; it takes about 25,000 mph to escape earth's gravity, "escape velocity." The Saturn V rocket could do this, the Shuttle cannot.
> 
> It can do low earth orbit only.


Interesting.
Maybe they can strap on some afterburners. LOL!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

cartrivision said:


> Actually no you can't. You can get close enough to other objects so that their gravitational pull pulls the object away from the Earth more than the Earth's gravitational pull pulls it toward the earth, but no matter where any object is in the universe, the Earth's gravitational pull is *ALWAYS* pulling on it.


Meandering off-topic and into science... it depends on what you think gravity is. To be perfectly factual, no one really knows how gravity works. We just know that it does... so I would not make an "always" statement that we cannot prove at this point.

Perhaps the nature of gravity is such that everything is attracted to everything if you could measure small enough over large distances... but since we can't prove such a thing at this point. it is just as likely that you can get far enough away from an object to be outside of its pull. At this level of our understanding of the universe, we simply cannot prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So while it may be possible you are correct, there is no definitive proof of it... and if I interject my own thoughts, I'm not entirely sure gravity even is an attractive force anyway. It's entirely possible that what we describe as gravity is actually the result of a repulsive force OR the result of particles so small we cannot see them (not the mythical "ether" of old scientific theories however)... or if the "unified field" folks ever find a way to synch up, the force of gravity may be a different "level" of the other forces like electromagnetism in which case a whole new realm of possibilities come up.

For the layman argument, and this thread, it suffices to say we can escape earth's gravity to get to the moon and beyond... Anything else requires more explanation than most folks want


----------



## yuppers519

Half hour ago this thing was at 11000 feet and now........ http://www.n2yo.com/?s=32709


----------



## bartendress

HDMe said:


> Perhaps the nature of gravity is such that everything is attracted to everything... ... ...


This reminded me of my last visit to San Francisco... ... ...


----------



## yuppers519

wondering if they are bringing it home to relaunch it?


----------



## bartendress

yuppers519 said:


> Half hour ago this thing was at 11000 feet and now........ http://www.n2yo.com/?s=32709


It's orbit is perturbed and elliptical because the anomaly occurred in route to its transfer orbit. You saw it dropping into perigee. It bottomed out at an altitude of about 450 miles. I wonder how high it gets at apogee. (No. I will not be staying up to document it.)


----------



## bartendress

yuppers519 said:


> wondering if they are bringing it home to relaunch it?


OMG

What?


----------



## James Long

yuppers519 said:


> Half hour ago this thing was at 11000 feet and now........ http://www.n2yo.com/?s=32709


Now THAT is the link we were looking for. Thanks!

Two Line Element Set (TLE):
1 32709U 08011B 08079.63845251 -.00000129 00000-0 00000+0 0 82
2 32709 049.2041 169.9937 6423314 356.9988 062.9436 03.07215499 121


----------



## James Long

Code:


Element Set Epoch                           08079.63845251
1st Derivative of the Mean Motion               -.00000129
with respect to Time
2nd Derivative of the Mean Motion                 00000-0
with respect to Time (decimal point assumed)
B* Drag Term                                      00000+0
Element Set Type                                0
Element Number                                 82

Orbit Inclination (degrees)                   049.2041
Right Ascension of Ascending Node (degrees)   169.9937
Eccentricity (decimal point assumed)              6423314
Argument of Perigee (degrees)                 356.9988
Mean Anomaly (degrees)                        062.9436
Mean Motion (revolutions/day)                  03.07215499
Revolution Number at Epoch                    121


----------



## Richard King

yuppers519 said:


> Half hour ago this thing was at *11000 feet *and now........ http://www.n2yo.com/?s=32709


Well, if that's the case just send the Goodyear blimp up to grab it and carry it home.


----------



## plarkinjr

right now, its at 9000 miles atltitude, rate of ascent looks to be about 2 miles per second.

Great Link! Thanks for sharing


----------



## ctaranto

Christopher Gould said:


> technically the moon is spining away from the earth at a rate of about an inch or two a year


I've also read that the "drag" of the moon's gravity on Earth is slowing Earth's rotation ever so slightly.

Millions of years ago, the moon rotated at a different speed than it does today, so the view of the Moon from Earth would change. Today, we only see one side of the moon at all times, as the moo's axis rotation and Earth rotation are currently at speeds which cause this effect.

So, the Earth is affecting the moon, and the moon is affecting the Earth. Good stuff.

Now.. :backtotop

-Cdraig


----------



## dms1

bartendress said:


> I wonder how high it gets at apogee. (No. I will not be staying up to document it.)


I thought the orbital parameters were included in one of the earlier press releases.


----------



## dms1

ctaranto said:


> Today, we only see one side of the moon at all times, as the moo's axis rotation and Earth rotation are currently at speeds which cause this effect.


It's likely to remain that way to. What happens is that the gravitational pull of the Earth on the Moon causes a slight bulge in the side of the Moon facing the Earth. 
With the Moon rotating with respect to the Earth this bulging side effectively moved around the Moon causing friction which converted rotational kinetic energy into heat, slowing the Moon's rotation down. Eventually, it slowed down to the point where the Earth and the Moon were in synchronous rotation, and that is the way they are likely to stay because it is a minimum energy state.


----------



## cdub998

plarkinjr said:


> right now, its at 9000 miles atltitude, rate of ascent looks to be about 2 miles per second.
> 
> Great Link! Thanks for sharing


Cool. I see 13000 miles now.


----------



## dms1

cdub998 said:


> Cool. I see 13000 miles now.


What's the interest in tracking the orbit minute-by-minute? You know the satellite is in an elliptical orbit with both perigee and apogee below what they need to be for a GTO and the inclination way higher than it needs to be for geostationary operation. All you are seeing is a snapshot of this orbit - it doesn't mean that anyone is doing anything to move the satellite.


----------



## eatonjb

Wait, I thought that the sats are in a Geostationary orbit. so they don't move.. or am I not understanding something?


----------



## James Long

eatonjb said:


> Wait, I thought that the sats are in a Geostationary orbit. so they don't move.. or am I not understanding something?


The sats are supposed to be geostationary ... what you are missing is that we are discussing a satellite that didn't reach the proper orbit. The orbit is stable ... just unusable until some rocket scientists bump the satellite into a different orbit.


----------



## dms1

James Long said:


> The sats are supposed to be geostationary ... what you are missing is that we are discussing a satellite that didn't reach the proper orbit. The orbit is stable ... just unusable until some rocket scientists bump the satellite into a different orbit.


Even if the launch hadn't "failed" then it still wouldn't have placed the satellite in a geostationary orbit. Instead, it would be in a geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO), which is an elliptical orbit with the perigee (low point) too low and the apogee (high point) correct, and also with the speed at perigee correct but the speed at apogee too slow. The satellite's own rocket motor is fired at apogee to increase the speed which then circularizes the orbit.


----------



## Steve_53

P Smith said:


> Would be nice if you will post URL of that stories also.


http://www.kommersant.com/p868115/Satellite_Breeze_AMC-14/


----------



## eatonjb

Steve_53 said:


> http://www.kommersant.com/p868115/Satellite_Breeze_AMC-14/


with that being said.. whos going to launch the new one, and hol long will it take to build and launch a new one.

sad day.. man I really want HD. and I don't want to move to Dtv as there DVR sucks. I will stick around and wait. as far as I know DTV has all stretch-o-vision.

back on subject.


----------



## James Long

dms1 said:


> Even if the launch hadn't "failed" then it still wouldn't have placed the satellite in a geostationary orbit. Instead, it would be in a geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO), which is an elliptical orbit with the perigee (low point) too low and the apogee (high point) correct, and also with the speed at perigee correct but the speed at apogee too slow. The satellite's own rocket motor is fired at apogee to increase the speed which then circularizes the orbit.


If the burn that failed had not terminated there would have been next steps that would have got the satellite to a final usable orbit.

BTW: While accuracy is important the difference between geostationary and geosynchronous shouldn't be nit picked. There are too many people using the wrong word (synchronus) for stationary satellites to spend time correcting it when it is obvious what the person meant.

It's like nit picking posters who are having trouble aiming their satellite instead of trouble aiming their dishes. A little tolerance would be appreciated.


----------



## James Long

Steve_53 said:


> http://www.kommersant.com/p868115/Satellite_Breeze_AMC-14/





> The AMC-14 orbit altitude was insufficient for transferring the satellite to the working orbit by using its own engines, representatives of SES AmeriCom that owns AMC-14 announced yesterday. The satellite is deemed lost and insurers will cover manufacturing and launching expenses of $200 million.


Ouch!


----------



## space86

I plan on staying with Dish Network, I have been a proud customer since
May of 2006 and I loved when in June of that year we got National Geographic in HD


----------



## RAD

Steve_53 said:


> http://www.kommersant.com/p868115/Satellite_Breeze_AMC-14/


Don't know how much faith I'd put in that news story since nobody else has said that yet, including SES Americom. The other guys site says they're being told they're still working on getting AMC-14 to its proper orbit.


----------



## dms1

James Long said:


> It's like nit picking posters who are having trouble aiming their satellite instead of trouble aiming their dishes. A little tolerance would be appreciated.


Where was I nit-picking? I distinguished between a geostationary orbit and a geosynchronous *transfer* orbit, but not between a geostationary and a geosynchronous orbit.


----------



## James Long

dms1 said:


> Where was I nit-picking? I distinguished between a geostationary orbit and a geosynchronous *transfer* orbit, but not between a geostationary and a geosynchronous orbit.


Sorry ... I mixed in a general comment with a direct response ... I didn't see your post in particular as nit picking.

But I did see your post as slightly off because if the burn had not failed there would have been "next steps" that would have put the satellite where it belonged. While the STEP that failed was getting it into the proper transfer orbit ... the goal of the launch was to reach a geostationary position. It's the forest, not the tree.


----------



## dms1

James Long said:


> But I did see your post as slightly off because if the burn had not failed there would have been "next steps" that would have put the satellite where it belonged. While the STEP that failed was getting it into the proper transfer orbit ... the goal of the launch was to reach a geostationary position. It's the forest, not the tree.


It comes down to semantics. Obviously if you take the word "launch" to mean putting the satellite in its proper location then the subsequent steps would have achieved that. However, I believe, as far as the company providing the launch service is concerned, "launch" means deploying the satellite into an agreed GTO. It is then the satellite operator that is responsible for moving it to the correct operating position. This is why Sea Launch can already claim the DirecTV 11 launch to be a total success even though it is no where near its final orbit yet.


----------



## davisdog

dms1 said:


> It comes down to semantics. Obviously if you take the word "launch" to mean putting the satellite in its proper location then the subsequent steps would have achieved that. However, I believe, as far as the company providing the launch service is concerned, "launch" means deploying the satellite into an agreed GTO. It is then the satellite operator that is responsible for moving it to the correct operating position. This is why Sea Launch can already claim the DirecTV 11 launch to be a total success even though it is no where near its final orbit yet.


Let's get the semantics right though ...GTO was at the completion of the 2nd Burn (which was about 5-10% short and resulted in early separation from the launch vehicle)...There was supposed to be 3rd Burn by the launch vehicle that put it into the Target orbit which is significatnlty different than the GTO (near circular and lower inclination)...that's when the launch service was to hand it off (after Spacecraft separation at the competion of the 3rd burn). Then the satellite was to move itself to the final orbit. Since it was left in a GTO type orbit, that's why it's screwed.


----------



## dms1

davisdog said:


> Let's get the semantics right though ...GTO was at the completion of the 2nd Burn (which was about 5-10% short and resulted in early separation from the launch vehicle)...There was supposed to be 3rd Burn by the launch vehicle that put it into the Target orbit which is significatnlty different than the GTO (near circular and lower inclination)...that's when the launch service was to hand it off (after Spacecraft separation at the competion of the 3rd burn). Then the satellite was to move itself to the final orbit. Since it was left in a GTO type orbit, that's why it's screwed.


Technically the satellite would have been in GTO after both the second and third burns since its apogee would be close to the geosynchronous orbit height. The main function of the third burn was to reduce inclination. The target perigee at the end of third burn was 3888 miles, which is well below geosynchronous level and still a very elliptical orbit.


----------



## Gilitar

This may have been covered, but why is Dish using the Russians for launches? Is there an advantage besides cost? They may want to take notes from Directv.


----------



## dms1

Gilitar said:


> This may have been covered, but why is Dish using the Russians for launches? Is there an advantage besides cost? They may want to take notes from Directv.


It's nothing to do with price. There are very few companies that offer heavy satellite lifts and they are all pretty much fully booked all the time. Most satellite owners use more than one company with schedules agreed in principle years in advance.


----------



## James Long

Gilitar said:


> This may have been covered, but why is Dish using the Russians for launches? Is there an advantage besides cost? They may want to take notes from Directv.


And use the Russians that launch from the Equator?

Yes, it has been covered. Look back at the beginning of this thread. SeaLaunch also has Russian ties and DirecTV has also used the same ILS Launch site as AMC-14.


----------



## Gilitar

I am curious as to what is causing the higher failure rate Dish is seeing. Something just isn't right. They seem to have too many birds that fail early or launches go bad. Something just isn't managed right in my book.


EDIT: I would be very interested to see comparison spending figures between Directv and Dish for the development, building and launching of satellites. I realize that they don't build or launch the birds, but they do contract it out.


----------



## James Long

Gilitar said:


> I am curious as to what is causing the higher failure rate Dish is seeing. Something just isn't right. They seem to have too many birds that fail early or launches go bad. Something just isn't managed right in my book.


What higher failure rate?

AMC-14 was DISH's 11th launch (probably more counting the other AMC birds).
How many have failed? One launch and one in orbit (which has partially come back to life)?
Are you sure that is higher than the rest of the industry?

What COULD they do different? Not by satellites and launches from the same companies that build satellites and perform launches for all other major players?

Your accusation is not valid.


----------



## Paul Secic

yuppers519 said:


> wondering if they are bringing it home to relaunch it?


They can't do that. OMG!!!!!!!


----------



## curt8403

Paul Secic said:


> They can't do that. OMG!!!!!!!


I think it is time to say goodbye to that poor bird. I expect 20 to 30 minutes


----------



## dms1

curt8403 said:


> I think it is time to say goodbye to that poor bird. I expect 20 to 30 minutes


On what do you base this?


----------



## curt8403

dms1 said:


> On what do you base this?


based on the track, and the rate of fall, but it now appears to be gaining altitude (at least for now) so it will be up a bit longer, and will miss africa, hopefully India, Maybe China, and end up in Russia?


----------



## dms1

curt8403 said:


> based on the track, and the rate of fall, but it now appears to be gaining altitude (at least for now) so it will be up a bit longer, and will miss africa, hopefully India, Maybe China, and end up in Russia?


It's in an elliptic orbit - its altitude will change over time. It would probably be able to maintain this orbit for years.


----------



## curt8403

dms1 said:


> It's in an elliptic orbit - its altitude will change over time. It would probably be able to maintain this orbit for years.


ok I will grant you that. I just watched it drop over a thousand miles and thought it was coming down. my bad


----------



## Tom Robertson

James Long said:


> Sorry ... I mixed in a general comment with a direct response ... I didn't see your post in particular as nit picking.
> 
> But I did see your post as slightly off because if the burn had not failed there would have been "next steps" that would have put the satellite where it belonged. While the STEP that failed was getting it into the proper transfer orbit ... the goal of the launch was to reach a geostationary position. It's the forest, not the tree.


All depends upon one's point of view. The launching company is charged with putting the spacecraft into a particular GTO insertion point. Then, most of the time, the satellite builder puts the spacecraft into a temporary testing orbit. When the satellite is tested as ready for operations, the builder then moves the satellite to the correct orbital slot.

Wouldn't each move be considered a transfer orbit?  (Ok, some movements are transfer orbits via drifting tho that still seems a transfer orbit.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## neljtorres

Well Dish and SEC both had bad luck on this launch but perhaps they have a plan B!


----------



## dms1

Tom Robertson said:


> Wouldn't each move be considered a transfer orbit?  (Ok, some movements are transfer orbits via drifting tho that still seems a transfer orbit.)


My understanding is that a GTO is any non-circular orbit in which the apogee is at, or close to the geosynchronous altitude. The perigee and inclination don't matter. Using this definition, AMC-14 would have been in a GTO after both the second and third burns, but as it stands it isn't.


----------



## jgurley

Read this link only if you really want to know how Directv's satellite launch went.

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/news/20...elivery_of_up_to_150_national_hd_channels.php


----------



## James Long

Tom Robertson said:


> Then, most of the time, the satellite builder puts the spacecraft into a temporary testing orbit. When the satellite is tested as ready for operations, the builder then moves the satellite to the correct orbital slot.


For this satellite the "testing orbit" and "final orbit" would have been the same. A circle around the equator where satellite appear to be stationary from a ground location.

The position above the Earth ON that orbit would have changed between testing and customer use - but it would be the same orbit.


----------



## James Long

jgurley said:


> Read this link only if you really want to know how Directv's satellite launch went.
> 
> http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/news/20...elivery_of_up_to_150_national_hd_channels.php


DirecTV still has until September to mess up that "launch". The press release seems premature ... praising the achievement of a transfer orbit - not arrival in the Clarke belt.

But that satellite is a topic for another forum. Last I checked this was a thread about AMC-14.


----------



## Tom Robertson

James Long said:


> For this satellite the "testing orbit" and "final orbit" would have been the same. A circle around the equator where satellite appear to be stationary from a ground location.
> 
> The position above the Earth ON that orbit would have changed between testing and customer use - but it would be the same orbit.


Nope, tho that was a very nice try.  The orbit TLEs are very different as the orbits do drift up/down/north/south/east/west in a circle above the earth. In theory the orbital plains are the same(-ish)... 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## James Long

We describe their relative position differently ... and rely on them staying inside a box ... but they're still following the same path (orbit) around the earth ... with the two Echostar satellites leading the way at 61.5° and another two bringing up the rear at 148° (as far as US DBS satellites go).


----------



## vurbano

Tom Robertson said:


> Nope, tho that was a very nice try.  The orbit TLEs are very different as the orbits do drift up/down/north/south/east/west in a circle above the earth. In theory the orbital plains are the same(-ish)...
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


agreed


----------



## Tom Robertson

James Long said:


> We describe their relative position differently ... and rely on them staying inside a box ... but they're still following the same path (orbit) around the earth ... with the two Echostar satellites leading the way at 61.5° and another two bringing up the rear at 148° (as far as US DBS satellites go).


[To be clear to all the watchers, I like James a lot. We've had fun helping, teasing, and moderating together. So when we're arguing schemantics (purposefully correctly mispelled), we're having fun.] 

James, I'm going to call LameLefty over for a ruling. He's the best Orbital Mechanic I know of on site. 

Cheerfully and with cheers,
Tom


----------



## LameLefty

Arggghhhhh . . . the pressure!

Okay, you guys are talking around each other. I think. I didn't go back and read EVERY post and I skimmed the ones I did. :lol:

Now, James is right . . . each satellite in GSO is following a circular path around the center of mass of the earth (disregarding the effects of the moon - which DO affect things, but I digress . . .  ). That path has a period of 23h56m04s (or one sidereal day). If you disregard the fact that the Earth is a rotating mass and pretend it's a non-rotating perfect sphere (which it's not but that doesn't matter for this post), then yes, each satellite in the Clarke Belt (RIP), is following one another around like a toy train. 

But since the Earth is in fact rotating, that doesn't matter either. You can treat them as fixed points in space. You just have to make SURE that as you analyze your trajectory into GTO and then into a test GSO slot (like Directv10 used for awhile last summer) or its operational slot, you don't stray too close to one of those "fixed" points. 

In reality, the computer software used to plan and control these trajectories models pretty much any spacecraft that would be anywhere near the projected path and its orbit using the latest TLE and would alert the planners of a potential problem. That's a big reason while NORAD makes TLEs public instead of restricting them to government users only.

But is that even what you're fussing about? :lol:


----------



## Tom Robertson

Yes, we are orbiting around each other's semantics, mostly for fun. I was hoping to be (ever so slightly) more correct, so I congratulate James on his correctedness in this issue.

Tho I have to ask--if they are not in separate orbits, why do they consider orbital slots with great care to avoid their separate movements from brushing one another? (Re: many of the issues with 101° crowding.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## EXTACAMO

I must say as a long time E* sub 10+ yrs. I'm starting to feel a little like Rocky. 
"Yooo Adrianne" :grin:


----------



## James Long

LameLefty said:


> *Now, James is right . . .*


Thanks! 

(I'll read the rest of your post now ...  )


----------



## James Long

Tom Robertson said:


> Tho I have to ask--if they are not in separate orbits, why do they consider orbital slots with great care to avoid their separate movements from brushing one another? (Re: many of the issues with 101° crowding.)


The antennas are designed to hit a slot ... regardless of how many satellites are there.

DBS is loose ... 9° spacing of slots means a single slot dish aimed at one slot won't get too much interference from the next slot unless it's aimed off quite a bit. There is still a tolerance (+/- 0.2° IIRC). The 101° is 100.8° to 101.2°. Putting those satellite closer together make it easier to hit with a single dish.

But (as you noted) every satellite drifts within it's box. What happens when the satellites in two boxes drift toward each other? Nothing (we hope). The boxes don't overlap. Most of the work of station keeping is just staying in the box and hoping the guy next door does the same.

Much like driving beside a car on the interstate. You've got those lines on the road. When everyone keeps it between the lines it works better.

BTW: When aiming professionally for C-Band one should check with the satellite owner to see when the satellite will be in the Center of Box. that way you're not precisely aiming at a satellite that is rarely in the location that you are aiming at.

BTW2: At 110° DISH has two satellites (E8 and E10), DirecTV has one ... the spare E6 "at 110°" is actually parked just outside the 108.8° to 110.2° slot - close enough to be ready but not far enough out to cause a problem.


----------



## space86

Why will AMC 14 be ready in May but Directv New Sat will not be working until 
September?


----------



## James Long

Spotbeam (and Ka) sats are trickier to test.


----------



## P Smith

space86 said:


> Why will AMC 14 be ready in May but Directv New Sat will not be working until
> September?


As posted the AMC-14 will not be operational. Perhaps never.
"The AMC-14 orbit altitude was insufficient for transferring the satellite to the working orbit by using its own engines, representatives of SES AmeriCom that owns AMC-14 announced yesterday. The satellite is deemed lost and insurers will cover manufacturing and launching expenses of $200 million."


----------



## jclewter79

I just seems that an amount of fuel that can keep this bird in place for 15 years ought to be able to propel it 5000 feet in a zero fricton enviroment with some useble amount left over. But then again I am no rocket scientist.


----------



## P Smith

James Long said:


> Sorry ... I mixed in a general comment with a direct response ... I didn't see your post in particular as nit picking.
> 
> But I did see your post as slightly off because if the burn had not failed there would have been "next steps" that would have put the satellite where it belonged. While the STEP that failed was getting it into the proper transfer orbit ... the goal of the launch was to reach a geostationary position. It's the forest, not the tree.


From ILS stand point the sat should delivered to:
"Target Orbit at Separation:

Apogee: 35,786 km (22,236 miles)
Perigee: 6,257 km (3,889 miles)
Inclination: 19.7°"

What cleary wasn't achieved.


----------



## rotomike

I think it boils down to insurance. Its covered so let her drop in the ocean! To get in in orbit and spend lots doing it to get a couple years out of it if any would be an insurance nightmare. Its like almost totaling a new car and the insurance is willing to give you a brand new car or you can spend lots of time and money and get it fixed somehwhat but most people would say just junk it!

Mike


----------



## jclewter79

Yes, but it possibly could be bought back from the insurance company by someone if they thought they could do something with it. Just like a totaled car.


----------



## Richard King

It would be more comparable to crashing your car and having the insurance company replace it, but you can't have the new car or drive it for two years (not that we need silly analogies).


----------



## Tom Robertson

Asiasat-3 was totaled by the insurers, sold to Hughes (the manufacturer), saved after two heroic trips around the moon, and then leased to PanAmsat for 3 years of useful (and profitable) life. While the insurance payout was greater than the profit earned, it did help offset the payout for the insurer.

Richard's car analogy is spot on.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## rocatman

P Smith said:


> As posted the AMC-14 will not be operational. Perhaps never.
> "The AMC-14 orbit altitude was insufficient for transferring the satellite to the working orbit by using its own engines, representatives of SES AmeriCom that owns AMC-14 announced yesterday. The satellite is deemed lost and insurers will cover manufacturing and launching expenses of $200 million."


For clarification, there appears to be some question about the authenticity of this statement that I believe came from a Russain source. SES Americom has not posted anything like this on their website or made an announcement to the press that states that AMC-14 is deemed lost.


----------



## Richard King

Tom Robertson said:


> Richard's car analogy is spot on.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Not that we need silly analogies.


----------



## bartendress

jclewter79 said:


> I just seems that an amount of fuel that can keep this bird in place for 15 years ought to be able to propel it 5000 feet in a zero fricton enviroment with some useble amount left over. But then again I am no rocket scientist.


If only it weren't for that pesky 'gravity' thingy... ... ...


----------



## HobbyTalk

Gilitar said:


> I am curious as to what is causing the higher failure rate Dish is seeing. Something just isn't right. They seem to have too many birds that fail early or launches go bad. Something just isn't managed right in my book.
> 
> EDIT: I would be very interested to see comparison spending figures between Directv and Dish for the development, building and launching of satellites. I realize that they don't build or launch the birds, but they do contract it out.


ILS, the company that launched AMC-14, has had 5 launch failures in 45 launches. That is 11%

Sea Launch, the company that launched DirecTv 11, has had 3 failures in 27 launches. That is also 11%


----------



## James Long

HobbyTalk said:


> ILS, the company that launched AMC-14, has had 5 launch failures in 45 launches. That is 11%
> 
> Sea Launch, the company that launched DirecTv 11, has had 3 failures in 27 launches. That is also 11%


And BOTH companies have been used by DISH and DirecTV.


----------



## 79MI

How much is this thing going to fluctuate in elevation while it's still in orbit? It's been steadily dropping for a few hours at least....now under 6k miles. Seems it was at 11k earlier today...


----------



## James Long

The orbit is elliptical ...

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/physical_science/physics/mechanics/orbit/ellipse.html


----------



## longrider

79MI said:


> How much is this thing going to fluctuate in elevation while it's still in orbit? It's been steadily dropping for a few hours at least....now under 6k miles. Seems it was at 11k earlier today...


It is in a highly elliptical orbit so you will see it going up and down as long as it is in orbit. I have no idea how long it will stay up naturally, but I suspect that if it is written off they will use its engines to deorbit it and plunge it into the ocean.


----------



## dms1

79MI said:


> How much is this thing going to fluctuate in elevation while it's still in orbit? It's been steadily dropping for a few hours at least....now under 6k miles. Seems it was at 11k earlier today...


Can I suggest that anyone that doesn't understand the basics of how orbits work spends a few minutes reading up on Kepler's laws. These are empirical laws devised before the time of Newton to explain the orbits of the planets around the sun. However, they are equally applicable to satellites orbiting the earth. Newton, of course, went on to justify Kepler's laws in terms of gravitation.


----------



## 79MI

Thanks for the link and the explanation....makes more sense now.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

dms1 said:


> Can I suggest that anyone that doesn't understand the basics of how orbits work spends a few minutes reading up on Kepler's laws. These are empirical laws devised before the time of Newton to explain the orbits of the planets around the sun. However, they are equally applicable to satellites orbiting the earth. Newton, of course, went on to justify Kepler's laws in terms of gravitation.


With regards to elliptical orbits... it turns out that in nature it appears to be much more likely to find a non-circular orbit. The Circle is kind of the "perfect" ellipse in that it is regular in shape... but it is essentially a special case, much like how a square is a "perfect" rectangle, and squares are not as common as rectangles.

It just happens that in "olden times" people imagined the orbits as circular, but once the lightbulb went off to realize that elliptical orbits were not only possible and fine, but quite common... then a lot more things made sense.


----------



## cartrivision

bartendress said:


> jclewter79 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just seems that an amount of fuel that can keep this bird in place for 15 years ought to be able to propel it 5000 feet in a zero fricton enviroment with some useble amount left over. But then again I am no rocket scientist.
> 
> 
> 
> If only it weren't for that pesky 'gravity' thingy... ... ...
Click to expand...

Not to mention that pesky inertia thingy that is holding it in an orbit that extends far north and south of the equator instead of always being directly over the equator.

It would take so much fuel to change the angle of the orbit back to an equatorial orbit that the last time they had to do a similar thing, they determined that it was more fuel efficient to send the satellite all the way to the moon and back in order to use the moon's gravity to help change the angle rather than to try to do it with its own rocket thrust alone.


----------



## rocatman

There have been some reports at another forum that the apogee of AMC-14 has been increased to about 22,000 miles which I believe is about the correct altitude for a geostationary orbit. Here is a link to another forum website that has posts that provided the information.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11859&posts=155&mid=259621#M259621


----------



## Tom Robertson

Hokie smokes!

This continues to be very interesting.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## cartrivision

Tom Robertson said:


> Hokie smokes!
> 
> This continues to be very interesting.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Perhaps they are testing out the functionality of the thrusters to determine if a future trip around the moon is possible, as raising it to a geosynchronous orbit at its current inclination would be useless.


----------



## rotomike

why cant they put thrusters all around these things and thrust it up until GEO and thrust it backwards to stop it and then thrust it forward to its location and thrust it backward to stop it etc.... Too expensive or difficult to add more thrusters?

Mike


----------



## Tom Robertson

rotomike said:


> whycant they put thrusters all around these things and thrust it up until GEO and thrust it backwards to stop it and then thrust it forward to its location and thrust it backward to stop it etc.... Too expensive or difficult to add more thrusters?
> 
> Mike


Way too much weight for both the thrusters and the fuel. Better to have a single main engine for big lifts and then use the small thrusters to orient the satellite before and after the lift.

Which is what the last stage booster rockets are supposed to do.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## davidjplatt

This is the exact same vehicle that launched DirecTV 10 last year. Good thing that launch worked and DirecTV used Sea Launch for DirecTV 11 using the Block DM!


----------



## greg47

Tom Robertson said:


> Way too much weight for both the thrusters and the fuel. Better to have a single main engine for big lifts and then use the small thrusters to orient the satellite before and after the lift.
> 
> Which is what the last stage booster rockets are supposed to do.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I am sure its a cost vs return issue for SES, if the cost is more than the return they will de-orbit it and take the insurance money and run. Lots of suggested fixes floating around most likely they take at least a month to figure out the best way to proceed. Since the satellite has a demostration payload on board you would assume it has a higher dollar value than a normal satellite in its class. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. SES has AMC 21 ready to launch in a few months but I do not belive it is a BSS bird and would be no use for dish at 61 degrees. Dish sure has rotten luck getting their satellites into good orbits in good condition.


----------



## cs550ds

I am following it. It looks like it is around 16,400 miles now. I am following it at http://www.n2yo.com/?s=32709
They have live real time satellite tracking.


----------



## RAD

davidjplatt said:


> This is the exact same vehicle that launched DirecTV 10 last year. Good thing that launch worked and DirecTV used Sea Launch for DirecTV 11 using the Block DM!


D10 was the first launch to use the enhanced Breeze M stage, did AMC-14 also us it or the prior version?


----------



## cartrivision

greg47 said:


> I am sure its a cost vs return issue for SES, if the cost is more than the return they will de-orbit it and take the insurance money and run.


That's not how it works. They don't have to destroy the satellite to get the insurance money. The satellite owner will likely get a payout of the full insured value from the insurer and then negotiate with them to buy back the "totaled" satellite if they think that there is a chance of salvaging it.


----------



## davisdog

Even if they never get it to the planned operational Location, and it never serves 1 Dish customer they are still going to want to test out some of the new stuff that they've put on this bird. That could be done from it's current orbit...Even though it could only be used a few hours per day for testing by SES/DISH to simulate that while it's at it's apogee (high point of the orbit)


----------



## peak_reception

> Since the satellite has a demostration payload on board you would assume it has a higher dollar value than a normal satellite in its class. Greg47


What is a "demostration" or "demonstration" payload? Thx.


----------



## davisdog

peak_reception said:


> What is a "demostration" or "demonstration" payload? Thx.


It's when a Satellite is launched with some extra equipment (ie payload) that has never been tested before in space (ie they are going to demo it to see how it works and if it can be used to improved future capabilities for satellites)

AMC-14 carries a demonstration receive active phased array (APA) payload that allows coverage (ie who/where you can receive it's signal) to be reshaped on orbit

Regardless of whether it gets to its final orbit, they'll test this out since it's in an orbit high enough to see how it works.


----------



## P Smith

Sounds logical, but you forget - this is DTH GSO type of sat, ie you can't use existing uplink dishes ( they are busy with regular tasks, practically pointed to stationary points ) and APA should hold spots on ground for check signal ranges on edge of each spot.
Technically useless do tests of APA now.


----------



## davisdog

P Smith said:


> Sounds logical, but you forget - this is DTH GSO type of sat, ie you can't use existing uplink dishes ( they are busy with regular tasks, practically pointed to stationary points ) and APA should hold spots on ground for check signal ranges on edge of each spot.
> Technically useless do tests of APA now.


Nope, didnt forget. It's close enough of a molyina orbit (which is common for comm sats supporting the upper Northern Hemisphere such as Siberia) that from a ground station point of view it's going to dwell in an area at it's apogee so you could use it a few hours a day for testing. There are plenty of fixed and/or mobile commsat terminals that can be used (and moved) for uplinking to this bird, and you can measure the affects of APA during those periods. Lockheed/SES put a lot of effort/$$$ into developing/integrating APA and I'm betting they'll take the time/resources to test it rather then wait for another chance (that will be a long time coming).

One of the Milstar's got left in a "useless" orbit by a failed Upperstage stage years ago and it also had some demo payloads...Alot of effort went into testing it with mobile terminals that paid off.... and it was much worse orbit than this. A few other examples that did well also.


----------



## Tom Robertson

davisdog, thanks for confirming what I was thinking. Well said, too.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## P Smith

I'm still disagree - you're talking about specialized commsats, with special earth station(s) what not just working for couple hours but actually follow those sats far longer. I don't think ( actually sure ) it's true - this is totally different sat - DTH type of service, add to the burden solar arrays, double orientation to sun and nadir ( read using fuel fast ), etc. I wouldn't take this as real opportunity for SES/Dish/E* test the sat that way. We don't hear plans in general yet.

BTW, not "molyina orbit" but Molniya orbit.


----------



## MrDogDad

Don't forget that AMC-14 is licensed to transmit from geostationary orbit at 61.5 (and maybe it's planned test location). There could be an interference issue if a transponder was activated in it's current orbit.


----------



## davisdog

we'll see or maybe we won't...They are already tracking it with antenna's for command/control during this orbit, and they already have to deal with at least some of the solar panels to keep the batteries charged while they deal with contingency planning (it's a matter of how much power they can get now to turn on other gear) . And I dont think keeping the antenna's at Nadir and solar panels towards the sun is going to be something you'll be eating up fuel doing...You'd go in a nasty tumble if you tried that. They've got momentum gyros to deal with the pointing...easy to do if you'd planned for this type of orbit, a challenge if you havent...


----------



## rocatman

davisdog said:


> we'll see or maybe we won't...They are already tracking it with antenna's for command/control during this orbit, and they already have to deal with at least some of the solar panels to keep the batteries charged while they deal with contingency planning (it's a matter of how much power they can get now to turn on other gear) . And I dont think keeping the antenna's at Nadir and solar panels towards the sun is going to be something you'll be eating up fuel doing...You'd go in a nasty tumble if you tried that. They've got momentum gyros to deal with the pointing...easy to do if you'd planned for this type of orbit, a challenge if you havent...


Although the current orbit is not what was planned for, even if the launch vehicle had performed nominally, the satellite still would have had to use its thrusters to adjust the orbit and put it at the correct longitude so the current situation is not much different from the nominal post launch situation. They may have raised the orbit of the satellite to provide longer communication times to the satellite as well as better battery charging.


----------



## space86

It has been a week now, any idea if AMC 14 will get in the proper orbit,
or will they just have to shoot it down?


----------



## space86

Dish Network customers can be reassured that the expansion of our HD programming over the next few months will proceed as planned,” said Dish CEO Charlie Ergen. “We are fortunate to have two more satellites scheduled for launch later this year to continue our HD rollout and reach our year-end goal of 100 local HD markets and 100 national HD channels.”

How in the world can there HD Plans proceed as planned when AMC 14 is not
in a proper orbit to work?


----------



## cartrivision

rocatman said:


> Although the current orbit is not what was planned for, even if the launch vehicle had performed nominally, the satellite still would have had to use its thrusters to adjust the orbit and put it at the correct longitude so the current situation is not much different from the nominal post launch situation. They may have raised the orbit of the satellite to provide longer communication times to the satellite as well as better battery charging.


Actually the current orbit is drastically different than what was planned for. The main problem is it's inclination. The thrusters and amount of fuel onboard simply weren't designed to be sufficient to change the inclination such a drastic amount as would be required with this satellite.


----------



## cartrivision

space86 said:


> Dish Network customers can be reassured that the expansion of our HD programming over the next few months will proceed as planned," said Dish CEO Charlie Ergen. "We are fortunate to have two more satellites scheduled for launch later this year to continue our HD rollout and reach our year-end goal of 100 local HD markets and 100 national HD channels."
> 
> How in the world can there HD Plans proceed as planned when AMC 14 is not
> in a proper orbit to work?


They said the plans for "the next *few months* will proceed as planned". That probably means that they were planning to light up a small number of new HD channels on existing satellites over the next few months, and those plans haven't changed. On the other hand, HD rollout plans out past the next few months obviously are going to have to be changed drastically if they don't have the use of AMC-14.


----------



## space86

cartrivision said:


> They said the plans for "the next *few months* will proceed as planned". That probably means that they were planning to light up a small number of new HD channels on existing satellites over the next few months, and those plans haven't changed. On the other hand, HD rollout plans out past the next few months obviously are going to have to be changed drastically if they don't have the use of AMC-14.


Thank You for your answer cartrivison it makes a little more sense to me now.


----------



## Tom Robertson

space86 said:


> It has been a week now, any idea if AMC 14 will get in the proper orbit, or will they just have to shoot it down?


They won't shoot it down, AMC-14 isn't likely to cause any problems upon reentry. (Since they can control it, they can burn off any fuels first, including a planned reentry in a safe location.)

The insurer, SES, and the manufacturer will likely examine all possibilities for some revenue from the satellite rather than eat the whole cost. So it might be a few more weeks before anything definitive is done with the satellite itself. (Meanwhile, the insurer and SES are likely going to order a replacement ASAP.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

MrDogDad said:


> Don't forget that AMC-14 is licensed to transmit from geostationary orbit at 61.5 (and maybe it's planned test location). There could be an interference issue if a transponder was activated in it's current orbit.


Yes, all testing would have to be approved of (if it hasn't already) by either the ITU and/or the FCC depending on where over the earth they wish to test.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## cartrivision

Tom Robertson said:


> The insurer, SES, and the manufacturer will likely examine all possibilities for some revenue from the satellite rather than eat the whole cost. So it might be a few more weeks before anything definitive is done with the satellite itself.


I would guess months, not weeks. Ten years ago, it was about three months after the failed launch of ASIASAT3 before they even started doing the thruster burns for the rescue maneuvers.

Settling the insurance claim, negotiating the buyback from the insurance company, designing a rescue mission, and waiting for the window when the rescue mission can be started, are delays that all add up to a significant amount of time.


----------



## bartendress

space86 said:


> Dish Network customers can be reassured that the expansion of our HD programming over the next few months will proceed as planned," said Dish CEO Charlie Ergen. "We are fortunate to have two more satellites scheduled for launch later this year to continue our HD rollout and reach our year-end goal of 100 local HD markets and 100 national HD channels."
> 
> How in the world can there HD Plans proceed as planned when AMC 14 is not
> in a proper orbit to work?


I don't know about _there _HD plans, but _their _short-term plans (2-3 months out) do not involve AMC-14. The absolute earliest AMC-14 could have provided service would have been May... at best.


----------



## ziltomil

If AMC 14 is going to do a lunar flyby to fix its orbit, the windows of opportunity are approximately

Mar 31
Apr 27
May 25
Jun 21
Jul 18
Aug 15
...


----------



## cartrivision

ziltomil said:


> If AMC 14 is going to do a lunar flyby to fix its orbit, the windows of opportunity are approximately
> 
> Mar 31
> Apr 27
> May 25
> Jun 21
> Jul 18
> Aug 15
> ...


What about the lunar cycle determines the window of opportunity?


----------



## harsh

cartrivision said:


> What about the lunar cycle determines the window of opportunity?


Lunar phase isn't the issue. If you're going slingshot about a planetoid, it has to be where you need it. Chasing after the moon is not good when you're burning fuel designated for station keeping.


----------



## lostman72

How fast can Dish have a new sat ready to replace this one? Let's say one fails, does it take months of planning or can they pick it up. Then ship it out to sea and send it up in about 30 days or so or? Do you think Dish and Directv have backup already up there? If something was to fail?


----------



## James Long

The easiest replacement would be to move E6 to 61.5° instead of 77° after E11 reaches 110° later this year. A real replacement satellite would take years ... unless they can re-purpose something already under construction.


----------



## cartrivision

harsh said:


> Lunar phase isn't the issue. If you're going slingshot about a planetoid, it has to be where you need it. Chasing after the moon is not good when you're burning fuel designated for station keeping.


Obviously, but that doesn't answer my question about why those specific dates were windows of opportunity.


----------



## cartrivision

lostman72 said:


> How fast can Dish have a new sat ready to replace this one? Let's say one fails, does it take months of planning or can they pick it up. Then ship it out to sea and send it up in about 30 days or so or? Do you think Dish and Directv have backup already up there? If something was to fail?


I think that Sats-R-Us has AMC-14's on sale this weekend for $10,000,000 off, so maybe they can "pick one up" there :lol:

Seriously though, Dish didn't own the AMC-14 and I don't think another one exists and is ready to be launched, which brings up another point, there is a line of people waiting for the few launch slots being provided by just a few companies, and that line is probably going to get longer as the company that just had the launch failure with AMC-14 will be out of commission until they can figure out and correct whatever caused the failure.

DirecTV on the other hand has built or is in the process of building a backup for D11 which was just successfully launched last Wednesday, and they recently announced that they plan to launch it and use it as an in-orbit spare.


----------



## rotomike

"reassured that the expansion of our HD programming over the next few months will proceed as planned”

That statement tells me that either they are lying or they had no plans to turn on the AMC-14 for at least 5 months. They could have turned it on in May and i find it hard to beieve that they would just leave it there without using it for 5 months. 
There is no question they planned on using the AMC-14 within a few months which I would say means 3-7 months or so and that means their plans are not going "as planned" unless they planned for a failure. Yeah they are going to expand over the next few months I agree but is it exactly the way they planned? 

Mike


----------



## ssmith10pn

I wonder if it was on the AMC-14 drawing board to move Atlanta HD locals over to 61.5 where they belong instead of 129.

Actually Atlanta is a big enough market to deserve a spot at 110 or 119.


----------



## James Long

ssmith10pn said:


> Actually Atlanta is a big enough market to deserve a spot at 110 or 119.


Atlanta is a big enough market to have a spot at 61.5° ... Cablevision/Rainbow DBS designed Rainbow 1 with a spot for that market with plenty of transponders to carry whatever channels were needed.

Unless DISH has an empty spotbeam on 110° aimed at Atlanta I would not expect HD locals from there.


----------



## Slamminc11

lostman72 said:


> How fast can Dish have a new sat ready to replace this one? Let's say one fails, does it take months of planning or can they pick it up. Then ship it out to sea and send it up in about 30 days or so or? Do you think Dish and Directv have backup already up there? If something was to fail?


Dish didn't build nor did they own this satellite. They were just going to least space on it. So there wouldn't be any reason for them to have another one "waiting" just in case.


----------



## HobbyTalk

cartrivision said:


> DirecTV on the other hand has built or is in the process of building a backup for D11 which was just successfully launched last Wednesday, and they recently announced that they plan to launch it and use it as an in-orbit spare.


If I remember correctly, D* next launch is to be on ILS and E* next launch is to be on Sea Launch.


----------



## RAD

HobbyTalk said:


> If I remember correctly, D* next launch is to be on ILS and E* next launch is to be on Sea Launch.


I haven't seen any thing announced by D* for their next launch, which would be D12, have you seen something that's announcing it?


----------



## Tom Robertson

HobbyTalk said:


> If I remember correctly, D* next launch is to be on ILS and E* next launch is to be on Sea Launch.


DIRECTV 12 is tentatively expected to launch near the end of 2009, but no announcements have been made as to which launcher nor which orbital slot.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## HobbyTalk

I thought I had read that someplace, I may be mistaken.


----------



## Tom Robertson

HobbyTalk said:


> I thought I had read that someplace, I may be mistaken.


I wonder if you saw the report that DIRECTV has an option on one of the launchers for a future launch? DIRECTV does have another option to luanch with Sealaunch "in the future". 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## ext1sxb

Tom Robertson said:


> They won't shoot it down, AMC-14 isn't likely to cause any problems upon reentry. (Since they can control it, they can burn off any fuels first, including a planned reentry in a safe location.)
> 
> The insurer, SES, and the manufacturer will likely examine all possibilities for some revenue from the satellite rather than eat the whole cost. So it might be a few more weeks before anything definitive is done with the satellite itself. (Meanwhile, the insurer and SES are likely going to order a replacement ASAP.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


AMC-14 is 'de-orbiting' right now! 
Check this: n2yo.com/?s=32709 - life satellites tracking.
The altitude is lowering dramatically!


----------



## ziltomil

cartrivision said:


> Obviously, but that doesn't answer my question about why those specific dates were windows of opportunity.


Those are the days when the moon is positioned 45 degrees from the place AMC14 would have to meet it in order to correct its inclination and save fuel.


----------



## ext1sxb

ext1sxb said:


> AMC-14 is 'de-orbiting' right now!
> Check this: n2yo.com/?s=32709 - life satellites tracking.
> The altitude is lowering dramatically!


May be I am wrong (I hope!). 
 They are performing some maneuvers and moving satellite to the eclipsed orbit.


----------



## dms1

ext1sxb said:


> AMC-14 is 'de-orbiting' right now!
> Check this: n2yo.com/?s=32709 - life satellites tracking.
> The altitude is lowering dramatically!


No it isn't (de-orbiting that is). Will people please read up the basics of Kepler's laws.


----------



## dms1

Tom Robertson said:


> I wonder if you saw the report that DIRECTV has an option on one of the launchers for a future launch? DIRECTV does have another option to luanch with Sealaunch "in the future".
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Given the lack of heavy lift capabilities it would be suicidal if every satellite operator didn't have options with more than one launch service. If you commit to a single service and they suspend operations for an extended period for whatever reason (as Sea Launch had to last year) then the last thing you want is to join the end of a long wait list for another service.


----------



## James Long

dms1 said:


> No it isn't (de-orbiting that is). Will people please read up the basics of Kepler's laws.


Or ... nicely put ... please go back in this thread and read what was posted about eliptical orbits.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1510699

It seems every time that AMC-14 comes close to earth someone predicts that it is crashing ... only to not notice that it follows the rest of the elipse later in the day.


----------



## dms1

ext1sxb said:


> They are performing some maneuvers and moving satellite to the eclipsed orbit.


Even if they were performing a maneuver you wouldn't be able to see it from the n2yo.com "tracking" data in anything close to real time. I'm pretty certain this supposed tracking data is just an orbital simulation based on the most recently listed TLE for the satellite.


----------



## bartendress

ext1sxb said:


> AMC-14 is 'de-orbiting' right now!
> Check this: n2yo.com/?s=32709 - life satellites tracking.
> The altitude is lowering dramatically!


Welcome to DBStalk.com!

What you are seeing is the satellite's altitude dropping into it's orbit perigee. A bit later you'll see it's ascent to about 16.5-17K miles as it reaches apogee. It's orbit is elliptical right now. I'm not sure of it's orbital period. You'll note that at apogee it will become geostationary relative to it's position at that time. It's an incomplete transfer orbit due to the anomaly within that stage of the launch.


----------



## James Long

dms1 said:


> Even if they were performing a maneuver you wouldn't be able to see it from the n2yo.com "tracking" data in anything close to real time. I'm pretty certain this supposed tracking data is just an orbital simulation based on the most recently listed TLE for the satellite.


True

Their latest TLE is
1 32709U 08011B 08079.63845251 -.00000129 00000-0 00000+0 0 82
2 32709 049.2041 169.9937 6423314 356.9988 062.9436 03.07215499 121

The one I copied on March 20th was
1 32709U 08011B 08079.63845251 -.00000129 00000-0 00000+0 0 82
2 32709 049.2041 169.9937 6423314 356.9988 062.9436 03.07215499 121

n2yo has been estimating the location of the satellite since "08079.63845251".
(March 21 03:19:22.1 UTC ???)
At that point in time the satellite orbit _could_ be described as


Code:


Element Set Epoch                           08079.63845251
1st Derivative of the Mean Motion               -.00000129
with respect to Time
2nd Derivative of the Mean Motion                 00000-0
with respect to Time (decimal point assumed)
B* Drag Term                                      00000+0
Element Set Type                                0
Element Number                                 82

Orbit Inclination (degrees)                   049.2041
Right Ascension of Ascending Node (degrees)   169.9937
Eccentricity (decimal point assumed)              6423314
Argument of Perigee (degrees)                 356.9988
Mean Anomaly (degrees)                        062.9436
Mean Motion (revolutions/day)                  03.07215499
Revolution Number at Epoch                    121


----------



## HobbyTalk

ext1sxb said:


> AMC-14 is 'de-orbiting' right now!
> Check this: n2yo.com/?s=32709 - life satellites tracking.
> The altitude is lowering dramatically!


Wait a bit, it will be going back up :lol:


----------



## cartrivision

James Long said:


> True
> 
> Their latest TLE is
> 1 32709U 08011B 08079.63845251 -.00000129 00000-0 00000+0 0 82
> 2 32709 049.2041 169.9937 6423314 356.9988 062.9436 03.07215499 121
> 
> The one I copied on March 20th was
> 1 32709U 08011B 08079.63845251 -.00000129 00000-0 00000+0 0 82
> 2 32709 049.2041 169.9937 6423314 356.9988 062.9436 03.07215499 121
> 
> n2yo has been estimating the location of the satellite since "08079.63845251".
> (March 21 03:19:22.1 UTC ???)


I believe that 08079.xxxxxxx means the 79th day of 2008 which would be March 19.


----------



## James Long

Still a few days old. I used a Navy calculator to convert the number.
Is January 1st "08000.xxxxxx" or "08001.xxxxxx" ?

BTW: It would be March 20 15:19:22.1 UTC if 08000.0 was midnight (2454466.50000 JD).


----------



## cartrivision

James Long said:


> Still a few days old. I used a Navy calculator to convert the number.
> Is January 1st "08000.xxxxxx" or "08001.xxxxxx" ?
> 
> BTW: It would be March 20 15:19:22.1 UTC if 08000.0 was midnight (2454466.50000 JD).


That sounds right. Assuming that the day starts counting from 0, day 0 would be Jan 1st, not Jan 0th.

EDIT: except that this web site (http://www.castor2.ca/03_Astronomy/03_TLE/Epoch.html) says that the days start numbering with 1, so it is March 19.


----------



## dahenny

I apologize if this link has already been posted. It shows a different look at the elliptical orbit than what you can see at n2yo.
http://heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=32709&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET


----------



## bartendress

dahenny said:


> I apologize if this link has already been posted. It shows a different look at the elliptical orbit than what you can see at n2yo.
> http://heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=32709&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET


That's awesome. Thanks!

I use heavens-above.com to track ISS/Shuttle passes. I tried to locate AMC-14 data but couldn't. Who knew they'd call it 'Object B'.

Thanks again for that link.


----------



## dahenny

There is an "object A" too, but, as SmithP suggests, it may be the remains of the Briz-M rocket. The key is in the NORAD ID...32709 for AMC14, and 32708 for "object A".


----------



## James Long

dahenny said:


> I apologize if this link has already been posted. It shows a different look at the elliptical orbit than what you can see at n2yo.
> http://heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=32709&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET


Very nice!

Same core data as n2yo uses but easier to understand ...
BTW: _Epoch (UTC): 3:19:22 PM, Wednesday, March 19, 2008_


----------



## harsh

ext1sxb said:


> AMC-14 is 'de-orbiting' right now!
> Check this: n2yo.com/?s=32709 - life satellites tracking.
> The altitude is lowering dramatically!


The orbit is eliptical (the model of the orbit actually). I've seen it vary from 400 miles to 16,000 miles. It is 10,450 miles and rising as I type.


----------



## dahenny

I have to note that there is some discussion that OBJECT A is the real AMC14, with an apogee at 35,718 km, which if true, suggests that the sat has been manipulated to a higher altutude. I guess only the suits know for sure. http://heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=32708&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET


----------



## davisdog

Interesting...I put both the TLE's into Satscape and it reports

32709 as BREEZE-M R/B -> ie Object B (R/B = Rocket Body)
and
32708 as AMC-14 -> ie Object A

I dont know where Satscape gets it's data from, and I can't remember what the convention is for denoting A vs B for a satellite and it's R/B after separation (I would assume the Satellite would be 'A'..makes more sense)...

But that just adds to the mystery


----------



## davisdog

Celestrack (who gets the TLE's from the unclassified NORAD info) also shows AMC-14 as object A/32708, and the R/B as Object B/32709.

Looking at the other recent launches (including Directv), the Satellite is always A, and the leftover launch vehicles are B...

http://celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/tle-new.txt


----------



## dahenny

I just noticed that the epoch for "B" was updated this morning. "A" was updated Friday.

I know all of this is just virtual calculations, but it's certainly interesting to keep an eye on.


----------



## Matt9876

They are slowly expanding the orbit, This fuel burn is going to reduce the life of the AMC-14 bird big time!


----------



## rocatman

Matt9876 said:


> They are slowly expanding the orbit, This fuel burn is going to reduce the life of the AMC-14 bird big time!


The current situation requires that satellite life has to be traded for useability. The current orbit of AMC-14 makes it useless to Dish or anybody else for that matter.


----------



## James Long

If DISH can get two or three years out of the satellite it will be worth getting it into position. The full 15 years would be nice ... but they will settle for what they can get.


----------



## dms1

Matt9876 said:


> They are slowly expanding the orbit, This fuel burn is going to reduce the life of the AMC-14 bird big time!


It's the fuel burn needed to put the satellite into an equatorial orbit that is going to be much more expensive then the fuel required to get to a geosynchronous (not geostationary) orbit.


----------



## Tom Robertson

James Long said:


> If DISH can get two or three years out of the satellite it will be worth getting it into position. The full 15 years would be nice ... but they will settle for what they can get.


Completely agree. Gives everyone time to get a new satellite built and launched without hurry and provides some value for the insurers.

Good luck, Echostar/SES/Dish

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## jefbal99

Tom Robertson said:


> provides some value for the insurers.
> 
> Good luck, Echostar/SES/Dish
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom












They should have went with Geico, would have saved up to 15% on their satellite launch insurance


----------



## tsmacro

jefbal99 said:


> They should have went with Geico, would have saved up to 15% on their satellite launch insurance


I dunno, somehow using a caveman when you need a rocket scientist just seems like you're asking for trouble! :lol:


----------



## bartendress

tsmacro said:


> I dunno, somehow using a caveman when you need a rocket scientist just seems like you're asking for trouble! :lol:


Maybe that's where our Comrades went wrong.


----------



## P Smith

Well, then China or France - pick one .


----------



## Schizm

In Soviet Russia satellite launch you!


----------



## EVAC41

I see on n2yo.com that the satellite is almost to the US. Cant a ground station track it and and turn on his rockets and put it in proper orbit. Also what I am seeing too on the 5 day Prediction is that it is going to cross the US. So can't they do something or i'm I thinking it's more complacated then that.


----------



## dms1

EVAC41 said:


> I see on n2yo.com that the satellite is almost to the US. Cant a ground station track it and and turn on his rockets and put it in proper orbit. Also what I am seeing too on the 5 day Prediction is that it is going to cross the US. So can't they do something or i'm I thinking it's more complacated then that.


Tracking the satellite has never been a problem. There are tracking stations all over the world and I'm sure they have been in continuous contact with the satellite since the moment it left the ground. The problem is how much of the on-board fuel is needed to obtain the correct orbit. Even if there is enough it will have seriously depleted the fuel reserves that are needed for station-keeping over the years, which is why the life will be shortened.


----------



## dahenny

source: http://heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=32708&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET

1 32708U 08011A 08085.39217513 -.00000146 00000-0 00000+0 0 95
2 32708 048.9813 168.5260 7087733 358.2851 013.7283 02.25662063 253

Epoch (UTC): 9:24:44 AM, Tuesday, March 25, 2008 
Eccentricity: 0.7087733 
Inclination: 048.9813° 
Perigee Height: 772 km 
Apogee Height: 35,576 km 
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 168.5260° 
Argument of Perigee: 358.2851° 
Revolutions per Day: 02.25662063 
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 013.7283° 
Orbit Number at Epoch: 25


----------



## bartendress

dahenny said:


> source: http://heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=32708&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET
> 
> 1 32708U 08011A 08085.39217513 -.00000146 00000-0 00000+0 0 95
> 2 32708 048.9813 168.5260 7087733 358.2851 013.7283 02.25662063 253
> 
> Epoch (UTC): 9:24:44 AM, Tuesday, March 25, 2008
> Eccentricity: 0.7087733
> Inclination: 048.9813°
> Perigee Height: 772 km
> Apogee Height: 35,576 km
> Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 168.5260°
> Argument of Perigee: 358.2851°
> Revolutions per Day: 02.25662063
> Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 013.7283°
> Orbit Number at Epoch: 25


It's apogee is (relatively) close to where it needs to be


----------



## davisdog

bartendress said:


> It's apogee is (relatively) close to where it needs to be


That push out was the easy part and didnt take much fuel. Circularizing and flattening the orbit down to the equator is the expensive part.


----------



## bartendress

davisdog said:


> That push out was the easy part and didnt take much fuel. Circularizing and flattening the orbit down to the equator is the expensive part.


True... but I hope it's easier given the bird's current apogee of 22,100-ish miles instead of say 17,000-ish miles... which is where it was on its ascent to transfer orbit at the time that crummy Briz-M thingy crapped out.

Stupid Briz-M thingy...


----------



## James Long

The best news is that it appears they are moving in that direction - saving the spacecraft - not ditching it.


----------



## bartendress

James Long said:


> The best news is that it appears they are moving in that direction - saving the spacecraft - not ditching it.


A-men


----------



## P Smith

James Long said:


> The best news is that it appears they are moving in that direction - saving the spacecraft - not ditching it.


I'm not sure if SES/Lockheed ppl are superstitious and didn't made press-release for current orbit corrections, or it just silent attempt do something and if will successful, then release it.


----------



## Tom Robertson

That makes sense, especially with the insurance companies being a big part of the story at this point. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## dms1

bartendress said:


> True... but I hope it's easier given the bird's current apogee of 22,100-ish miles instead of say 17,000-ish miles... which is where it was on its ascent to transfer orbit at the time that crummy Briz-M thingy crapped out.
> 
> Stupid Briz-M thingy...


So far, they've managed to make up for the shortened second burn of the Breeze M. Unfortunately, the entire third burn was lost too, and the principal function of this burn was to reduce the inclination of the orbit. It's quite a tall order to expect the satellite's own rocket motor to compensate for an entire burn of the launch vehicle without using a massive amount of the available fuel.


----------



## James Long

If they can do it all with 10 years of fuel it's good enough.


----------



## P Smith

bartendress said:


> <..>
> Stupid Briz-M thingy...


So far only four countries in whole world could make such 'stupid' thingy. And no one of them have 100% success. 
I don't think there was or living a person who never did one mistake at least.


----------



## dahenny

If anybody cares......

source: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11859&start=166&posts=175


----------



## bartendress

P Smith said:


> So far only four countries in whole world could make such 'stupid' thingy. And no one of them have 100% success.
> I don't think there was or living a person who never did one mistake at least.


That was meant as a humorous aside. A bit of levity.

Sorry it went over your head.
_(And since I'm sure you won't get that, either. I'll note that my reference to 'over your head' is funny, too... given the context of this discussion about a satellite that, by its very nature, flies above your head.)_

BTW: I suspect it's more than four. d;-)


----------



## Tom Robertson

At this point, only the US, Europe, Russia, and maybe India can launch something this heavy to GSO, I think. I might have missed on. P Smith does that match the list you were thinking of?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## longrider

China was the other country I was aware of. While this report doesn't say how large the sat was, they did successfully put a communications satellite into GSO


----------



## rocatman

longrider said:


> China was the other country I was aware of. While this report doesn't say how large the sat was, they did successfully put a communications satellite into GSO


The Echostar-1 satellite was launched on a Chinese Long March vehicle back in 1995 although the satellite mass was about 2000 pounds less than AMC-14.


----------



## peak_reception

> At this point, only the US, Europe, Russia, and maybe India can launch something this heavy to GSO, I think. I might have missed on. P Smith does that match the list you were thinking of?--Tom


There may well be a number of coutries in Europe with the capability. France and Germany come first to mind. Possibly England, Spain, Italy, Sweden? 
Talking capability, not readiness to sign the contract and get going on it.

Either way, I'm learning a lot from the expertise all of you bring to this and other topics here. This AMC-14 saga is especially fascinating.


----------



## P Smith

If you'll count size and weight of Dxx/Exx/AMCxx sats, then there are four countries: US, France, China and Russia.


----------



## rocatman

Just to give some numbers of where AMC-14 is versus what the target was for successful Proton launch. These numbers are from the following website with hopefully accurate conversion by myself:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11859&start=166&posts=176

Target: 3888 miles x 22236 miles at 19.7 degrees inclination

Current: 480 miles x 22106 miles at 49 degrees inclination


----------



## davisdog

P Smith said:


> If you'll count size and weight of Dxx/Exx/AMCxx sats, then there are four countries: US, France, China and Russia.


ps..Technically (or politically I think it's now Russia and Ukraine (two parts of former USSR), and France doesnt do it themselves anymore, it's the European Space Agency (ESA) which is funded by many European Countries.

Japan, Israel, UK (now in ESA), Israel and India are the other countries that I believe have successfully demonstrated their own satellite launch capabilities, although like you said none can get that large of beast into Geo (India is probably closest)


----------



## P Smith

Well, physically launches provided by those four. 

If you begin counting all contractors and subcontractors, then it will blur whole picture as big cloud.


----------



## peak_reception

> and France doesnt do it themselves anymore -- davisdog


But they could if they wanted to, as could a handful of other european members of the ESA (given some lead time).


----------



## davisdog

sure, probably take them years though since they don't own a launch vehicle or a launch pad anymore afaik.


----------



## skyviewmark1

So what is going on.. Has everyone completely lost interest in AMC-14. Does anyone know why n2yo.com is still reporting AMC-14 as 32709 when Space-Track is reporting it as 32708. Where are all the pretty graphics that I see in the DirecTV-11 thread. Have we given up hope? Inquiring (and interested) minds want to know.


----------



## HobbyTalk

I would suspect there is more info on D11 because there is more informaion being given out about it. If AMC-14 is being moved, they may be doing that to see if it is possible to salvage it before they make any annoucements.


----------



## dms1

HobbyTalk said:


> I would suspect there is more info on D11 because there is more informaion being given out about it. If AMC-14 is being moved, they may be doing that to see if it is possible to salvage it before they make any annoucements.


You should be able to get a feeling for whether anything is happening or not by the frequency at which TLEs are issued. For example, several updates in a day would indicate a burst of maneuvering activity.


----------



## Sixto

HobbyTalk said:


> I would suspect there is more info on D11 because there is more informaion being given out about it. If AMC-14 is being moved, they may be doing that to see if it is possible to salvage it before they make any annoucements.


Same info for both D11 and AMC-14 ... regular TLE's for both ... http://heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=32708&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=EDT

Nobody has any inside info on D11 ... just using the public TLE's ...


----------



## dahenny

*LATEST UPDATE*

1 32708U 08011A 08087.59130116 -.00000181 00000-0 00000+0 0 103
2 32708 048.9785 168.0001 7087612 358.7531 000.2499 02.25662051 319

Epoch (UTC): 2:11:28 PM, Thursday, March 27, 2008 
Eccentricity: 0.7087612 
Inclination: 048.9785° 
Perigee Height: 772 km 
Apogee Height: 35,576 km 
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 168.0001° 
Argument of Perigee: 358.7531° 
Revolutions per Day: 02.25662051 
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 000.2499° 
Orbit Number at Epoch: 31


----------



## TBoneit

If it can be salvaged IMHO they will take the method that uses the least fuel to enhance what life they can get out of it. This would also equate to slowest method in all probability.

If I were a gambling man, which I'm not BTW, I'd be betting on the sure thing that Charlie is looking into what he can do to enhance any chances of getting it delivered within a reasonable dollar amount Versus scrapped for the insurance.


----------



## davisdog

TBoneit said:


> If it can be salvaged IMHO they will take the method that uses the least fuel to enhance what life they can get out of it. This would also equate to slowest method in all probability.
> 
> If I were a gambling man, which I'm not BTW, I'd be betting on the sure thing that Charlie is looking into what he can do to enhance any chances of getting it delivered within a reasonable dollar amount Versus scrapped for the insurance.


Since Charlie is just leasing space, it doesnt really cost him anything until SES hands over usable transponders to him...although it will hit his pocket book if he doesnt have enough transponders to meet customer demands for more HD, and they start leaving before he can deliver.

He probably wants it as fast as reasonably possible, and if it only lasted a few years it would be ok to him...since that's the time he would need to find somebody else that could lease him replacement space.


----------



## cartrivision

I didn't see this posted in this thread, but someone posted it in the D-11 thread....
_
Proton Upper-Stage Failure Creates Tough Choices for Companies

By Peter B. De Selding, Paris/Simon Saradzhyan, Moscow

The owners of the AMC-14 telecommunications satellite that was placed into a bad orbit March 15 during the launch of a Proton-M rocket are likely to decide by early April a strategy for getting the spacecraft to its intended orbital slot.......
_
full article here:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/080324-busmon-proton-failure.html


----------



## P Smith

We aware of the article; almost two weeks we have no official press release from SES Americom .


----------



## Tom Robertson

davisdog said:


> Since Charlie is just leasing space, it doesnt really cost him anything until SES hands over usable transponders to him...although it will hit his pocket book if he doesnt have enough transponders to meet customer demands for more HD, and they start leaving before he can deliver.
> 
> He probably wants it as fast as reasonably possible, and if it only lasted a few years it would be ok to him...since that's the time he would need to find somebody else that could lease him replacement space.


I agree with everything you say. I suspect with his clout, he very well could be working as a diplomat to all parties involved: ILS, the insurance company, and SES. (Maybe manufacturer too.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## normang

I just wish all the whiners that are so darn concerned about Dish's next HD channel offering would just switch, then we wouldn't have to hear about it anymore..

Eventually, it will be ALL the SAME. No one will have any significant channel advantage over the other with some rare exceptions. Probably sports related.. Its only a matter of time irregardless of whether AMC-14 makes it to orbit or not.


----------



## texaswolf

normang said:


> I just wish all the whiners that are so darn concerned about Dish's next HD channel offering would just switch, then we wouldn't have to hear about it anymore..
> 
> Eventually, it will be ALL the SAME. No one will have any significant channel advantage over the other with some rare exceptions. Probably sports related.. Its only a matter of time irregardless of whether AMC-14 makes it to orbit or not.


Yeah, as much as i have complained about not having new HD, i have complained about poor communications more...finally he came out said what they were trying to add, and when they were HOPING to get them going, and this happened....so I can't complain...they finally communicated and are trying....we just have to hope for the best on this sat, and the other birds to follow (and not just for the HD channels, but for the company all around).


----------



## cartrivision

P Smith said:


> We aware of the article; almost two weeks we have no official press release from SES Americom .


Lots of people are aware of it, but as I said, I was posting it here in this thread (where it's most relevant) since nobody else had posted it here.


----------



## aloishus27

cartrivision said:


> Lots of people are aware of it, but as I said, I was posting it here in this thread (where it's most relevant) since nobody else had posted it here.


I was not aware of the article... so thanks for the post!


----------



## rey_1178

cartrivision said:


> Lots of people are aware of it, but as I said, I was posting it here in this thread (where it's most relevant) since nobody else had posted it here.


me either. thank you


----------



## Paul Secic

normang said:


> I just wish all the whiners that are so darn concerned about Dish's next HD channel offering would just switch, then we wouldn't have to hear about it anymore..
> 
> Eventually, it will be ALL the SAME. No one will have any significant channel advantage over the other with some rare exceptions. Probably sports related.. Its only a matter of time irregardless of whether AMC-14 makes it to orbit or not.


You're correct. In about 10 years Dish & Direct will have launched 5 to 6 sats, and everybody should be happy!


----------



## Jhon69

Paul Secic said:


> You're correct. In about 10 years Dish & Direct will have launched 5 to 6 sats, and everybody should be happy!


For DirecTV #6 will be in 2009/D12.


----------



## RAD

Paul Secic said:


> You're correct. In about 10 years Dish & Direct will have launched 5 to 6 sats, and everybody should be happy!


Na, E* subs will be waiting for Charlie to negotiate the cheapest price for programming resulting on Dish missing a nunber of HD channels that other systems carry.


----------



## phrelin

Paul Secic said:


> You're correct. In about 10 years Dish & Direct will have launched 5 to 6 sats, and everybody should be happy!





RAD said:


> Na, E* subs will be waiting for Charlie to negotiate the cheapest price for programming resulting on Dish missing a nunber of HD channels that other systems carry.


Hope you're both wrong as I doubt I'll be alive in 10 years. How about 2 years?


----------



## harsh

RAD said:


> Na, E* subs will be waiting for Charlie to negotiate the cheapest price for programming resulting on Dish missing a nunber of HD channels that other systems carry.


What's the magic number above which subscribers won't be able to justify service? Is it $99? $120??

It is getting to the point that DIRECTV (and to a lesser extent DISH Network) are becoming relatively expensive. For those without HD desires, it is getting difficult to justify subsidizing those hungry for HD.


----------



## bartendress

harsh said:


> What's the magic number above which subscribers won't be able to justify service? Is it $99? $120??
> 
> It is getting to the point that DIRECTV (and to a lesser extent DISH Network) are becoming relatively expensive. For those without HD desires, it is getting difficult to justify subsidizing those hungry for HD.


For _my particular programming_, my DISH package will be equivalent to what I was paying Time Horror... but with DISH I get a DVR with 3 tuners, better PQ across the board, and best of all... no bull-$#!+.

Case in point: the AUS Time Horror faction moved that generic NWS weather radar channel to the digital (yes, we want you to pay more for it) tier... even though you can't swing a dead cat over your head without hitting at least 5 radar feeds on the internet for free.


----------



## space86

Any update on when AMC 14 will be placed in its proper orbit?


----------



## dms1

space86 said:


> Any update on when AMC 14 will be placed in its proper orbit?


No. It's not even be confirmed that it will be placed in its proper orbit. It could prove to be technically impossible (not enough delta-V budget on the satellite), or financially not worth while for the satellite owners (which aren't Dish Network).


----------



## Grandude

phrelin said:


> Hope you're both wrong as I doubt I'll be alive in 10 years. How about 2 years?


I'm with you phrelin, at 70 years of age, 10 years is highly optimistic. Sure would like to see a lot more HD soon so I could have a good excuse to upgrade my HDTV to something bigger/better than what I have now. Just down the road a piece from you here in Santa Rosa......


----------



## space86

Dish Network said that they have two more Satellites to launch this year,
are they for local HD or National HD?


----------



## Paul Secic

dms1 said:


> No. It's not even be confirmed that it will be placed in its proper orbit. It could prove to be technically impossible (not enough delta-V budget on the satellite), or financially not worth while for the satellite owners (which aren't Dish Network).


I think it's just about over, sad to say..


----------



## James Long

space86 said:


> Dish Network said that they have two more Satellites to launch this year,
> are they for local HD or National HD?


Both.


----------



## cartrivision

Paul Secic said:


> I think it's just about over, sad to say..


I don't know what you base that on. When Hughes saved the ASIASAT ten years ago, they didn't start the rescue maneuvers until three months after the launch failure.


----------



## vicw

Grandude said:


> I'm with you phrelin, at 70 years of age, 10 years is highly optimistic. Sure would like to see a lot more HD soon so I could have a good excuse to upgrade my HDTV to something bigger/better than what I have now. Just down the road a piece from you here in Santa Rosa......


I'm only 68, and hoping for at least 20 more, but who knows?

It puzzles me why you would need to have more HD available to justify upgrading your system. It seems to me there is a huge array of OTA and Satellite HD currently available. I have all I can do to watch everthing that I can, without spending every waking moment looking at it.

With the current availability of superb HD DVRs on Dish, and dramatically improved HDTV sets, at very reasonable prices, I can't imagine why you would wait another day to make your upgrades. My grandfather regretably lost his sight at 70, and my attitude is that we should take full advantage of the senses we have, and enjoy them fully while we still can.


----------



## harsh

space86 said:


> Dish Network said that they have two more Satellites to launch this year, are they for local HD or National HD?


Echostar 11 will offer full coverage of DISH Networks service areas (CONUS, AK, HI and PR) at 110W. It will replace Echostar 8 at that spot. Ciel 2 will go to 129W for both "WestUS" and spotbeams.


----------



## cartrivision

harsh said:


> Echostar 11 will offer full coverage of DISH Networks service areas (CONUS, AK, HI and PR) at 110W. It will replace Echostar 8 at that spot. Ciel 2 will go to 129W for both "WestUS" and spotbeams.


So 11 doesn't add any HD capacity if used as originally planned? It's just a replacement? Does anyone know if 11 can be used temporarily as a replacement for AMC-14 if they can't salvage that satellite?


----------



## James Long

E11 was designed for 110° and is going to 110° ... that is the best use of this satellite. "Everybody" uses 110° - less than half of the country uses 61.5°.

E11 is more than a simple replacement for the ConUS use of E8 at 110°. It is a higher powered satellite (which should allow more channels per transponder) as well as providing better coverage to Alaska and Hawaii.

All is not lost for 61.5° ... DISH filed plans to move E6 (which is currently a spare parked for backup at 110°) to 77°. It wouldn't be hard to move it a little further to 61.5° if AMC-14 cannot be salvaged.

But E-11 needs to get in place first.


----------



## harsh

Part of what is needed at 61.5W is spotbeams and E11 doesn't have them. E6 does have some spotbeam capability.


----------



## James Long

Not quite. E6 does not have spotbeams.
Neither does AMC-14.


----------



## Mikey

harsh said:


> Part of what is needed at 61.5W is spotbeams and E11 doesn't have them. E6 does have some spotbeam capability.


Rainbow-1 (E-12) at 61.5 has plenty of spotbeams. It just needs a reliable CONUS partner.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Not quite. E6 does not have spotbeams.


Sorry, I transposed E6 and E8.


----------



## space86

E* Customers will not have the 30 National HD Channels
that were announced on the last Charlie Chat, until next year because of the 
AMC 14 launch failure?


----------



## vicw

space86 said:


> E* Customers will not have the 30 National HD Channels
> that were announced on the last Charlie Chat, until next year because of the
> AMC 14 launch failure?


Is your leading question based on something you saw or read somewhere, or just speculation?


----------



## Ron Barry

_Moderator Note_

This thread is not a No HD gripe thread.. We have one so please use it. This thread is to discuss AMC-14 not reaching orbit. I just removed a few posts that should have been in the HD gripe thread so lets keep posts on topic guys.


----------



## projectorguru

in reading farther on the net, I have seen where they have said they are confident they can get it back in orbit, but it will decrease life span, so maybe they will get it there short term until the others are launched, maybe?


----------



## dms1

projectorguru said:


> in reading farther on the net, I have seen where they have said they are confident they can get it back in orbit, but it will decrease life span, so maybe they will get it there short term until the others are launched, maybe?


That would be the obvious business choice for Dish. However, they don't own the satellite - they were going to lease it once it was in orbit. Therefore, what's done is likely to be decided between the satellite's owners and their insurance company, ultimately with the goal of minimizing the loss to the insurer. If it was decided that more money could be recovered by writing off the satellite and then selling it to someone else, I'm not sure how much say Dish would have.


----------



## dahenny

A little related news:

April 2, 2008 - The Russian State Commission investigating the recent Breeze M failure reports that it is close to determining a root cause for the incident. The commission has been meeting regularly since March 18.

Meanwhile, all the members have been selected for the ILS Failure Review Oversight Board (FROB). Members include rocket and propulsion experts as well as representatives of the insurance industry, the affected customer and upcoming launch customers. ILS is in the process of submitting requests to the U.S. State Department for the various licenses required for the FROB meetings in Russia and for subsequent briefings to customers and insurers.

_Source: _http://www.ilslaunch.com/proton-return-to-flight-communication/


----------



## James Long

space86 said:


> E* Customers will not have the 30 National HD Channels
> that were announced on the last Charlie Chat, until next year because of the
> AMC 14 launch failure?


A few days after the launch (and about a week after the chat) DISH put out a press release discussing the new HD channels ... 


> "DISH Network customers can be reassured that the expansion of our HD programming over the next few months will proceed as planned," said Charlie Ergen, Chairman, CEO and President of DISH Network. "We are fortunate to have two more satellites scheduled for launch later this year to continue our HD rollout and reach our year-end goal of 100 local HD markets and 100 national HD channels."


You may read about it here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=123092
Please discuss in that thread, if needed.


----------



## cartrivision

space86 said:


> E* Customers will not have the 30 National HD Channels
> that were announced on the last Charlie Chat, until next year because of the
> AMC 14 launch failure?


Dish has released seemingly conflicting statements on this subject. One was a disclosure to stockholders filed with the SEC as required by law. That disclosure stated in part, "the manufacturer of the satellite, are exploring options to potentially bring AMC-14 into its proper orbit", and "the launch anomaly will result in a delay in our roll out of some high definition channels, including some local network channels."

(full document here: http://apps.shareholder.com/sec/viewerContent.aspx?companyid=DISH&docid=5801960)

They also issued a press release which said that there would be no delay in their short term HD rollout schedule "over the next few months", which some people have incorrectly interpreted to negate their disclosure in the SEC filing which says, "the launch anomaly will result in a delay in our roll out of some high definition channels, including some local network channels".

My advice&#8230;. believe the SEC filing over the incomplete and ambiguous press release that just talks about "the next few months". The SEC filing is where DISH is bound by law to make full and true disclosures of material facts to its stockholders.


----------



## James Long

The press release was specific to the Charlie Chat announcements that space86 was referring to. A direct reply ... not an inference.

A quick glance at the uplink report shows that getting new local HD markets (including unannounced markets) up on the satellites is well underway. Now they just have to turn them on without overwhelming their CSRs with orders and complaints.

We've discussed this before ... there is no reason why BOTH statements cannot be true.


----------



## cartrivision

James Long said:


> The press release was specific to the Charlie Chat announcements that space86 was referring to. A direct reply ... not an inference.
> 
> A quick glance at the uplink report shows that getting new local HD markets (including unannounced markets) up on the satellites is well underway. Now they just have to turn them on without overwhelming their CSRs with orders and complaints.
> 
> We've discussed this before ... there is no reason why BOTH statements cannot be true.


I believe that they both are true. The press release was an attempt at damage control which just talked about very short term plans for HD rollouts not being affected, while the SEC filing was more complete in disclosing that (beyond just looking at the short term effects) the launch failure would indeed result in a delay of DISH's roll out of some high definition channels and some local network channels.

The confusion came from some people who claimed that the press release negated what the SEC filing said about delays in the HD rollout plan. It doesn't.


----------



## jclewter79

I guess that no news is good news on this?


----------



## bartendress

jclewter79 said:


> I guess that no news is good news on this?


I think it's simply an instance where the dead horse requires no further beating.


----------



## dahenny

The latest data hasn't changed very much:

http://heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=32708&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET

1 32708U 08011A 08097.54436973 -.00000061 00000-0 00000+0 0 195
2 32708 048.9792 165.6447 7086918 000.8506 165.8837 02.25661524 531

Epoch (UTC): 1:03:54 PM, Sunday, April 06, 2008 
Eccentricity: 0.7086918 
Inclination: 048.9792° 
Perigee Height: 774 km 
Apogee Height: 35,574 km 
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 165.6447° 
Argument of Perigee: 000.8506° 
Revolutions per Day: 02.25661524 
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 165.8837° 
Orbit Number at Epoch: 53


----------



## HobbyTalk

I would guess that no news means hey have not made a decision.


----------



## Satellites

It is fun reading all the speculation in these forums. I can tell you it isn't over til the fat lady sings. 

Some of statements you guys are making are on the right track others are simply not true.


----------



## vicw

Satellites said:


> ...Some of statements you guys are making are on the right track others are simply not true.


No doubt that some are, and some aren't, but that doesn't add much to the discussion.

Would you care to comment on which ones fall into which category?


----------



## stansher

Satellite to Deorbit
http://www.space-travel.com/reports...n_AMC_14_Lunar_Flyby_Salvage_Attempt_999.html


----------



## dahenny

Well...very disappointing.


----------



## bartendress

stansher said:


> Satellite to Deorbit
> http://www.space-travel.com/reports...n_AMC_14_Lunar_Flyby_Salvage_Attempt_999.html


Wow.

Just...

wow


----------



## Richard King

> "the patent office was incompetent when it came to space matters".


Gee. This has to be the most blatant abuse of patent that I have ever heard of.


----------



## tpm1999

I wonder if Charlie has enough money to send up another one, especially since blowing a ton of dough on the 700 spectrum?


----------



## HobbyTalk

E* didn't send this one up. It was launched by SES and was to be leased by E* from SES.


----------



## normang

Wow, a process like that and someone patented it.? And they want to enforce it? Instead of letting them attempt to recover their satellite.. The patent process, like so many other government institutions is just broken beyond all repair...


----------



## P Smith

Strange excuse ... Could be it was just the writer mock-up ?


----------



## Ed Campbell

I picked this up from spacedaily.com - and Posting it at Dvorak Uncensored for tomorrow morning discussions.

Won't be up online till 7:30AM PDT

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=17144


----------



## P Smith

Ed Campbell said:


> I picked this up from spacedaily.com - and Posting it at Dvorak Uncensored for tomorrow morning discussions.
> 
> Won't be up online till 7:30AM PDT
> 
> http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=17144


Can you get it from your browser's cache ?
"The topic had been deleted"


----------



## James Long

I assume that means "don't look now, the page is blank until morning" ?


----------



## man_rob

SES AMERICOM Declares AMC-14 Satellite A Total Loss

Options to place satellite in proper orbit not viable

Betzdorf, Luxembourg - April 11th, 2008 - SES S.A. (Euronext Paris and Luxembourg Stock Exchange: SESG) today announced that SES AMERICOM, its North American subsidiary, has declared to insurers that its recently launched satellite - AMC-14 - is now considered a total loss, due to a lack of viable options to reposition the satellite to its proper geostationary orbit.

"SES and Lockheed Martin have carefully examined all the available options for repositioning this satellite into its intended geostationary orbit," said Edward Horowitz, President and CEO of SES AMERICOM. "Unfortunately, none of those options would allow effective use of the spacecraft. The various repositioning scenarios presented carry unacceptable risks, and would result in a severely shortened life of the satellite. Therefore, we have no choice but to claim a total loss of the satellite with our insurers."

...While AMC-14 is currently in a stable orbit, SES is exploring plans to retire the satellite.

http://www.ses.com/ses/siteSections...sReleases/pressReleaseList/08-04-11/index.php


----------



## jefbal99

Hopefully the insurance company will take ownership of the bird and sell it to another party who can work out a deal with boeing or challenge the patent in court.

The article at space travel didn't seem that that would happen, but i hope for all you E* folks. competition is a good thing


----------



## dms1

So some one has managed to patent gravity. :nono2:


----------



## man_rob

steveken said:


> hmm, wonder why the ever so slight changes? just tiny burns here and there instead of big burns?


I'm not one of the satellite experts here, so this is just speculation, but perhaps as it gets closer to position, slight changes are done to avoid overshooting the mark, and/or care to avoid other nearby sats?

I'd rather they take their time, and get it right. There is so much that still could go wrong. Sad to say, the Dish AMC-14 has been officially scrapped.

http://www.ses.com/ses/siteSections...sReleases/pressReleaseList/08-04-11/index.php


----------



## dms1

man_rob said:


> Sad to say, the Dish AMC-14 has been officially scrapped.
> 
> http://www.ses.com/ses/siteSections...sReleases/pressReleaseList/08-04-11/index.php


Apparently because Boeing has managed to patent gravity. :nono2:


----------



## tuff bob

more here

http://www.space-travel.com/reports...n_AMC_14_Lunar_Flyby_Salvage_Attempt_999.html


----------



## Ed Campbell

OT, here - but, I scheduled a discussion Post on AMC-14, last night, to appear over at Dvorak Uncensored in about an hour-and-a-half.

The DISH folks here at dbstalk are upset enough.


----------



## LameLefty

dms1 said:


> Apparently because Boeing has managed to patent gravity. :nono2:


Er, what? 

NASASpaceflight.com's paid L2 section has a Starsem presentation discussing the Breeze-M failure. I can't link to it (it's a paid site) nor can I quote it directly, but the gist of the State Commission finding on the failure indicates that the updated Breeze-M upperstage used (also used for D10, as I recall), failed due to overheating in the engine components. Apparently the upgrades introduced a year or so ago created conditions conducive to overheating and/or over-stressing engine components on long-duration, multiple-burn mission profiles. The report notes that the Breeze-M has now failed on two of its four missions to date, though not in quite the same way each time. That has GOT to reduce customer confidence.


----------



## dms1

LameLefty said:


> Er, what?


http://www.space-travel.com/reports...n_AMC_14_Lunar_Flyby_Salvage_Attempt_999.html


----------



## man_rob

I didn't mean to side track the thread by bringing up AMC-14. I was just using it as an example, along with the latest news on that satellite, to show the importance of erring on the side of caution. I would imagine the debate on the patent ownerships of rescuing sats would be a better fit in the general satellite forum.


----------



## DustoMan

DISH Network's AMC-14 satellite "a total loss"

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/04/11/dish-networks-amc-14-satellite-a-total-loss/


----------



## miller24

Ouch.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3728726.ece


----------



## rey_1178

Boeing Patent Shuts Down AMC-14 Lunar Flyby Salvage Attempt

illustration only
by Staff Writers
Los Angeles CA (SPX) Apr 10, 2008
Attempts to salvage a wayward GEO comsat have come unstuck in the face of institutional disinterest and an aging patent of questionable validity.

The AMC-14 commercial geostationary satellite was launched in March by a Proton launch vehicle into space just short of its minimum geostationary transfer orbit (GTO).

SES Americom, the world's largest commercial satellite firm, owns the satellite and was to lease capacity on AMC-14 to the Echostar group.

Following the failed launch, SES Americom looked into how they might salvage the satellite in a manner similar to the Asiasat-3 salvage in 1998.

However, SpaceDaily has now learned that a plan to salvage AMC-14 was abandoned a week ago when SES gave up in the face of patent issues relating to the lunar flyby process used to bring wayward GEO birds back to GEO Earth orbit.

Sources have told SpaceDaily that it was possible to bring AMC-14 back via the moon to a stable GEO orbit where the high powered satellite would have been able to operate for at four years and probably longer.

In the face of unrelated legal battles between the current patent owner Boeing and the satellite's owner SES Americom - any efforts to salvage AMC-14 have been cast aside.

Primarily this is because SES is currently suing Boeing for an unrelated New Skies matter in the order of $50 million dollars - and Boeing told SES that the patent was only available if SES Americom dropped the lawsuit.

Industry sources have told SpaceDaily that the patent is regarded as legal "trite", as basic physics has been rebranded as a "process", and that the patent wouldn't stand up to any significant level of court scrutiny and was only registered at the time as "the patent office was incompetent when it came to space matters".

SES has decided not to pursue any legal options against Boeing and wants to collect their insurance policy payout. However, their insurance company was not being fully briefed on the options and at this time is planning to pay the policy out.

Separately, another company has approached the insurers about buying the spacecraft for salvage using the lunar flyby option. Initially, the insurers were surprised as they had no knowledge of this option and suggested that they contact SES Americom directly.

While most satellite insurance policies allow the insurer to take ownership of a satellite when they pay a claim, they rarely do this. The default is instead to leave "ownership" with the operators, who are then legally obliged to safely deorbit the satellite or move the satellite into a GEO parking orbit.

At this stage SES Americom is working with a major US space consultancy to rapidly deorbit the satellite - as early as this Friday. SpaceDaily has been told that various attempts by third parties to buy the satellite have been ignored and both parties are "eager to splash the satellite within days".


----------



## Sixto

dms1 said:


> http://www.space-travel.com/reports...n_AMC_14_Lunar_Flyby_Salvage_Attempt_999.html


wow, that's some article ... all discussion can got to the AMC-14 thread (http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=122797), but the patent issue is bizarre ...

AMC-14: both parties are "eager to splash the satellite within days". wow.

Back to topic ...


----------



## LameLefty

dms1 said:


> http://www.space-travel.com/reports...n_AMC_14_Lunar_Flyby_Salvage_Attempt_999.html


Jeez louise. You can't patent laws of physics - I learned that as a second-year law student. I'd do it anyway and let them sue ME, then raise invalidity of the patent as a defense.


----------



## P Smith

In official SES release the 'patent issue' hasn't been mentioned - I would treat it as that writer's personal opinion.


----------



## P Smith

SES didn't mentioned such 'patent issue' in official release, so wouldn't take it seriously.


----------



## JohnH

P Smith said:


> SES didn't mentioned such 'patent issue' in official release, so wouldn't take it seriously.


May not be an SES issue. Had they actually received the satellite?


----------



## lwilli201

If ACM-14 has enough fuel aboard to shoot it off toward the moon, why don't they shoot it off toward the sun instead of burning it up in our atmosphere. Will it all burn up? Maybe Boeing has a patent for that procedure. :sure:


----------



## Ed Campbell

P Smith said:


> SES didn't mentioned such 'patent issue' in official release, so wouldn't take it seriously.


So - only press releases are accurate news sources?


----------



## P Smith

You can do your own specualtion - it will have same value for us.


----------



## FTA Michael

The press release would have been a place to put the blame on the company it's suing, if it that had been accurate (or defensible) and SES had been so inclined. That it wasn't mentioned suggests that either that the third-party report wasn't entirely accurate or that SES doesn't feel like bringing it up.


----------



## James Long

Probably not something SES wants to bring up "officially" in a press release if the lawsuit issue is that touchy.


----------



## MIMOTech

Chances are that SES looked at the total cost of this mess and concluded that it would have to launch another sat in 4 years and balanced that cost in to the loss and payment from the insurance. The decision was probably easier then we think. All that talk about patents was nonsense. If they were serious about doing the moon orbit recovery method they would have just done it.

P


----------



## njblackberry

Is it de-orbiting now? http://www.n2yo.com/?s=32708 shows it below 500 miles and dropping.

I agree that the patent discussion is nonsense (although the patent itself sounds ridiculous).

It's too bad it couldn't be recovered...


----------



## MIMOTech

This episode comes down simply to how best to minimize the financial losses.


----------



## LameLefty

P Smith said:


> In official SES release the 'patent issue' hasn't been mentioned - I would treat it as that writer's personal opinion.


It won't be in any official release because the two companies are still engaged in unrelated litigation. This has been leaked (and all the aerospace press has mentioned it now, pretty much), probably as a bargaining chip.



> If ACM-14 has enough fuel aboard to shoot it off toward the moon, why don't they shoot it off toward the sun instead of burning it up in our atmosphere. Will it all burn up? Maybe Boeing has a patent for that procedure


Escape velocity for the earth-moon system is higher than what the satellite can do, almost certainly. On the other hand, from a highly-elliptical orbit, a loop around the moon (or at least relatively close to the moon to use its gravitation to alter an orbit) is potentially do-able, depending on the fuel load of the satellite and the mass of the spacecraft. MUCH less energy required than escaping altogether.


----------



## dms1

MIMOTech said:


> Chances are that SES looked at the total cost of this mess and concluded that it would have to launch another sat in 4 years and balanced that cost in to the loss and payment from the insurance. The decision was probably easier then we think. All that talk about patents was nonsense. If they were serious about doing the moon orbit recovery method they would have just done it.
> 
> P


This is where Dish paid the price for leasing and not owning the satellite. Four years service to Dish would have been invaluable since it would have given them time to get a replacement up, and would avoid the risk of losing market share if they fall behind on their product offering. However, SES aren't bothered by any consequential losses to Dish - they just need to do what is financially best for themselves.


----------



## dms1

LameLefty said:


> I'd do it anyway and let them sue ME, then raise invalidity of the patent as a defense.


I tend to agree. However, the article mentioned the ongoing $50M lawsuit between Boeing and SES, and the fact that Boeing made it clear they wanted to connect the two. If SES went ahead and maneuvered AMC-14 Boeing could stand up in court on the other case and rightfully state that SES knowingly and intentionally violated Boeing's patent. It wouldn't look too good for SES. Remember that the insurance is paying out, so all SES will lose out of this is the profit they would have made from Dish over the life of the deal, which is probably worth less than the value of the ongoing litigation.


----------



## ziltomil

lwilli201 said:


> If ACM-14 has enough fuel aboard to shoot it off toward the moon, why don't they shoot it off toward the sun instead of burning it up in our atmosphere. Will it all burn up? Maybe Boeing has a patent for that procedure. :sure:


Let's see!

29000m/s to crash into the sun vs 10m/s to crash into earth


----------



## dms1

It's good to see that this thread has now gone off-topic with an AMC-14 discussion as opposed to being off-topic with a discussion on available HD channels. Hopefully D11 will do something interesting soon and we can get back on topic.


----------



## MIMOTech

It would be interesting to know what agreements were in the contract between dish and SES. Penalties, etc.


----------



## lwilli201

ziltomil said:


> Let's see!
> 
> 29000m/s to crash into the sun vs 10m/s to crash into earth


I never said it would be easy. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Sixto

njblackberry said:


> Is it de-orbiting now? http://www.n2yo.com/?s=32708 shows it below 500 miles and dropping.
> 
> I agree that the patent discussion is nonsense (although the patent itself sounds ridiculous).
> 
> It's too bad it couldn't be recovered...


there's not been any new TLE for AMC-14 since Wednesday ... anything on n2yo is just a simulation based on the 48 hour old TLE ... and since the orbit is non-circular it always looks like it's going up or down significantly: http://heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=32708&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=EDT


----------



## man_rob

The real shame of it all is that it appears that it could have been recovered, be it for a shorter lifespan, if not for legal red tape mumbo jumbo. It just plain stinks.


----------



## LameLefty

dms1 said:


> I tend to agree. However, the article mentioned the ongoing $50M lawsuit between Boeing and SES, and the fact that Boeing made it clear they wanted to connect the two. If SES went ahead and maneuvered AMC-14 Boeing could stand up in court on the other case and rightfully state that SES knowingly and intentionally violated Boeing's patent. It wouldn't look too good for SES.


It would be REALLY tricky to get that into court (speaking as a lawyer now, not a former spacecraft engineer). It would probably be declared inadmissible as irrelevant by the judge and excluded and if it wasn't, SES would then explain that the patent was invalid and that Boeing was trying to patent gravitational interactions of the sort identified and quantified by Sir Isaac Newton 300 years ago. That sort of thing would backfire on Boeing.

And that's the last time (hopefully) I have to put on my lawyer-hat in this thread. :lol:


----------



## Sixto

man_rob said:


> The real shame of it all is that it appears that it could have been recovered, be it for a shorter lifespan, if not for legal red tape mumbo jumbo. It just plain stinks.


You'd think the insurance company would take ownership, pay the $150M, and then sell the sat to the highest bidder, any $ is a bonus unless theres some legal reason they are not incented to try.


----------



## man_rob

Sixto said:


> You'd think the insurance company would take ownership, pay the $150M, and then sell the sat to the highest bidder, any $ is a bonus unless theres some legal reason they are not incented to try.


The problem seems to lie between SES, and Boeing. SES is suing Boeing for 50 million on an unrelated matter, so Boeing isn't so open to allowing SES to use their patented _Around The Moon Satellite Recovery _(TM) technique without SES dropping that suit. SES doesn't want to deal with a legal challenge to Boeing's patent claim on the_ Around The Moon Satellite Recovery_ (TM) technique. (which in and of itself seems ridiculous)

Maybe a third party could work something out, but word has it they are going to bring it down within days.


----------



## Gilitar

man_rob said:


> The problem seems to lie between SES, and Boeing. SES is suing Boeing for 50 million on an unrelated matter, so Boeing isn't so open to allowing SES to use their patented _Around The Moon Satellite Recovery _(TM) technique without SES dropping that suit. SES doesn't want to deal with a legal challenge to Boeing's patent claim on the_ Around The Moon Satellite Recovery_ (TM) technique. (which in and of itself seems ridiculous)
> 
> Maybe a third party could work something out, but word has it they are going to bring it down within days.


If the bit about the patent is true, it's just another example of what is wrong with the patent system. I'm surprised breathing isn't patented.

Sucks to hear the satellite is lost. Maybe they can rush another one up in the next year or so.


----------



## dms1

Gilitar said:


> If the bit about the patent is true, it's just another example of what is wrong with the patent system. I'm surprised breathing isn't patented.


Actually, advocates for patent reform could use this to their advantage, at least in increasing public awareness of the problem. Most patent disputes are far too complex for the general public who end up feeling the fallout without understanding what happened, but in this case something along the lines of "Boeing patents gravity" would make a good headline.


----------



## crashHD

dms1 said:


> So some one has managed to patent gravity. :nono2:


That was me. Everyone that hasn't floated into space must immediately begin paying me damages.


----------



## fredp

Gilitar said:


> If the bit about the patent is true, it's just another example of what is wrong with the patent system. I'm surprised breathing isn't patented.
> 
> Sucks to hear the satellite is lost. Maybe they can rush another one up in the next year or so.


This is a quote from an alt.dbs.echostar appender. Funny but sad...

Can you imagine such nonsense in the Apollo 13 days? "Jim, we think we've
got a procedure that might get you boys home- but just to be safe, we're
running it by the lawyers first.." ;-)


----------



## Richard King

Just for that I am going to begin a boycott of Boeing. I will no longer buy ANY of their airplanes. 

This is the problem with this kind of patent abuse. There is literally nothing that the general public can do about it. This is patent abuse taken to the extreme.


----------



## kog

From the SES press release:



> We expect to receive the insurance proceeds of approximately USD 150 million in the next few months, thereby enhancing our cash position.


That $150 million seems kind of low to me. Doesn't the satellite plus launch cost add up to quite a bit more than that? I believe Dish also has insurance on this satellite... wonder what their payout will be like.


----------



## HDRoberts

> The various repositioning scenarios presented carry unacceptable risks


For those that think the Boeing patent theory is wrong because it isn't in the press release, I think the above statement could we be an allusion to the patent issues. Besides getting sued by Boeing, what other "unacceptable risks" to trying a lunar assist maneuver is there?


----------



## cartrivision

Sixto said:


> wow, that's some article ... all discussion can got to the AMC-14 thread (http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=122797), but the patent issue is bizarre...


It is very bizarre. Hughes was probably the original owner of that patent, and I assume that Boeing acquired it when they purchased the satellite operations of Hughes.

Back in the day when I worked for Hughes, I remember that there was an ongoing push to encourage their engineers to acquire patents for any patentable process that was developed at Hughes. The number of patents acquired for Hughes was a metric that was periodically reported by management when they gave state of the company (or division) presentations to employees, and it was also made known by management that acquiring patents for Hughes was something that was looked upon positively when considering the possible promotion of their engineers. Given that kind of push, I'll bet that Hughes (now Boeing) holds lots of "bizarre" patents besides this one which seems to claim exclusive rights to the use of the moon's gravity.


----------



## davisdog

You could always end up in a worse/hazardous position or I can think of a few other things..too bad they had insurance that gives them an easier out to abandon the effort.

anyway, I would doubt they would mention the patent issues in the press release anyway, because of slander/liability issues...of having that complaint become part of the public record that could open up more bad blood in the ongoing legal proceedings between them.


----------



## tnsprin

kog said:


> From the SES press release:
> 
> That $150 million seems kind of low to me. Doesn't the satellite plus launch cost add up to quite a bit more than that? I believe Dish also has insurance on this satellite... wonder what their payout will be like.


Probably things get complicated. ILS might have to insure or eat some of the launch cost seperately from SES's lose of the satellite.


----------



## cartrivision

Sixto said:


> You'd think the insurance company would take ownership, pay the $150M, and then sell the sat to the highest bidder, any $ is a bonus unless theres some legal reason they are not incented to try.


That's what happened when Hughes rescued ASIASAT3 ten years ago. It was declared a total loss, the insurance company paid Hughes for the insured value of the satellite, and then Hughes bought the satellite back from the insurance company for it's salvage value.

It wasn't much different from what happens every day when an auto insurance company "totals" a car and pays off the owner for the insured value and then the owner buys it back from the insurance company and fixes it up to drivable but less than ideal condition with part of the insurance money.


----------



## cartrivision

davisdog said:


> anyway, I would doubt they would mention the patent issues in the press release anyway, because of slander/liability issues...of having that complaint become part of the public record that could open up more bad blood in the ongoing legal proceedings between them.


Exactly. Big corporations almost never comment publicly on matters of current or potential litigation, other than saying, "It's our policy not to comment on matters of current or potential litigation".


----------



## James Long

It is a shame that it is going to be deorbited.

Here's a wild thought: Insurance buys the satellite and sells it to Hughes ... Hughes uses their "patented" around the moon maneuver to get the satellite into orbit at 61.5° and leases or sells the satellite to Echostar.

Echostar owns the licenses at 61.5°, so it isn't an issue of it being an SES slot for an SES satellite. It would work if Hughes was willing to take a risk and the satellite isn't in the atmosphere before they get a chance.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Sorry if this thread has become a bit tattered. I moved a series of OT posts from the DIRECTV 11 Post Separation thread that seemed to have a bit of relevance here. 

It will all straighten itself out in a few minutes, knowing this crowd.

Thanks for understanding,
Tom


----------



## Mikey

Dish withdrew it's filing with the FCC that would move E6 to 77w. Wonder if they'll file to move it to 61.5 now?

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SESSTA2008031100282&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number


----------



## ESPNSTI

HDRoberts said:


> Besides getting sued by Boeing, what other "unacceptable risks" to trying a lunar assist maneuver is there?


Perhaps it will inadvertently suck the moon down to earth? :scratch:


----------



## grooves12

HDRoberts said:


> For those that think the Boeing patent theory is wrong because it isn't in the press release, I think the above statement could we be an allusion to the patent issues. Besides getting sued by Boeing, what other "unacceptable risks" to trying a lunar assist maneuver is there?


There will be a LOT of time and money involved in planning and implementing a recovery operation. If it doesn't work out they will have wasted lots of man hours and truckloads of cash. It is easier for them to just move on and start working on the next project.


----------



## Kheldar

grooves12 said:


> There will be a LOT of time and money involved in planning and implementing a recovery operation. If it doesn't work out they will have wasted lots of man hours and truckloads of cash.


And, if they tried and failed, wouldn't they be giving up their insurance payment? If they tried and failed, the insurance company could then say they damaged it themselves and decline payment, right?


----------



## kog

Kheldar said:


> And, if they tried and failed, wouldn't they be giving up their insurance payment? If they tried and failed, the insurance company could then say they damaged it themselves and decline payment, right?


Any proposed action by SES would probably get run through various lawyers and the insurance company to make sure it wouldn't screw up their insurance coverage. The sad truth is it's just easier for SES to deorbit the satellite than try and go through all that trouble. Hopefully SES or the insurance company will find a buyer for the satellite and they can do something useful with it. This satellite is suppose to have some pretty interesting hardware on it.

I believe Dish has also stated they bought insurance on this satellite being operational also. I wonder what kind of payout Dish will get from this?


----------



## Tom Robertson

kog said:


> Any proposed action by SES would probably get run through various lawyers and the insurance company to make sure it wouldn't screw up their insurance coverage. The sad truth is it's just easier for SES to deorbit the satellite than try and go through all that trouble. Hopefully SES or the insurance company will find a buyer for the satellite and they can do something useful with it. This satellite is suppose to have some pretty interesting hardware on it.
> 
> I believe Dish has also stated they bought insurance on this satellite being operational also. I wonder what kind of payout Dish will get from this?


To take your first thought a bit farther, I'm sure all the players (Echostar, SES, the insurance companies, and Boeing) examined every possible play, then ran it thru all the various legals. 

And there might still a last ditch save after the insurance companies pay out. At that point, just before the de-orbit burn, someone might step up with an offer to the title-holder. Once all the sidebar issues are cleared, sometimes a last second solution is freed to come forth.

It will continue to be an interesting saga. 
Tom


----------



## James Long

Mikey said:


> Dish withdrew it's filing with the FCC that would move E6 to 77w. Wonder if they'll file to move it to 61.5 now?
> 
> http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SESSTA2008031100282&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number


I certainly hope that is happening. I mentioned this at the time of the launch failure as an option.


----------



## PTown

Well I guess its a total loss folks.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6550874.html


----------



## HobbyTalk

Old news from 3 days ago.


----------



## peak_reception

I wonder what impact AMC-14's loss, on top of other recent failures, will have on the cost of insuring future satellites for launch and loss?


----------



## davisdog

I havent checked the numbers lately, but my gut feel says the failure rate is about the same as it has been for the last 10-15 years...although Insurance prices probably go up regardless...dont feel sorry for the Insurance companies...they make tons of money already


----------



## James Long

DISH bailed out of that game years ago because insuring a large fleet cost more than a loss. They did have insurance for E4 ... which took YEARS for payment to be made (and then the satellite became more operational ).


----------



## PTown

HobbyTalk said:


> Old news from 3 days ago.


Didn't see a link posted. Sorry.


----------



## Mikey

Dish filed for a new 180 day STA to keep E6 at 110.4, because of the failure of AMC-14. Sounds like they're not sure what to do with E6 now.

Dish FCC filing


----------



## dahenny

Well...as of 4:52:08 AM this morning, the latest TLE shows no change in AMC14's orbit. 
http://heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=32708&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET


----------

