# AMC 14 Failure identified



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

Here's the ILS release.

http://www.ilslaunch.com/russian-commission-determines-cause-of-amc-14-breeze-m-failure


----------



## space86 (May 4, 2007)

I wonder if they did not check everything before launch?


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

space86 said:


> I wonder if they did not check everything before launch?


The rocket guys web sites say that this particular launch had one of the longest uninterrupted burn times for the M engine. They had speculated that something wore out. Perhaps the heat and erosion and flex failure that the investigators reference fits that picture.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Sounds like they tried to push it's limits just a little too much, and paid the price.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FYI: The previous thread AMC-14 failed to reach the planned orbit is now closed and this thread remains to discuss AMC-14.


----------



## mcbelisle (Apr 22, 2008)

So, Are you complaining!!!!"


----------



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

Title says it all. Here is the FCC website address:

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/servlet/ib.page.FetchAttachment?attachment_key=-146515


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

duplicate


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

What is the legal reason EchoStar Corp submitted this request instead of the owner, SES? SES was indicated as a party but the request was signed by a EchoStar official.  Was the lease agreement already in effect at the launch date? Just curious.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It was by authority that the FCC granted Echostar that the satellite was launched.
The responsibility to keep the FCC informed and ask for changes falls back to them.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

"The ILS Failure Review Oversight Board (FROB) will meet in Moscow on 25 April to commence an in-depth review and assessment of the Russian State Commission investigation. In addition to propulsion and industry experts and representatives of the insurance industry, the FROB will also include customer representatives. "

Stay tuned for new launch schedules (Ciel 2 among others)


----------



## dahenny (Apr 16, 2007)

This is getting CRAZY!

the source of the link is from "k1wy-bill"

*SES Negotiating To Sell AMC-14 To US Government Agency*

http://www.spacemart.com/reports/SES_Negotiating_To_Sell_AMC-14_To_US_Government_Agency_999.html


----------



## peak_reception (Feb 10, 2008)

2nd to last paragraph in the link provided by dahenny contains this startling bit of information: 


> They would specifically like to prevent the vehicle from being bought by Echostar, the customer that originally intended to lease AMC-14 from SES, sources told SpaceDaily.


 Could be a lot of intrigue involved in this.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

How do you sell a satellite AND collect insurance on it?
Isn't that like selling your wrecked car and expecting insurance to pay "totaled" cost?

I suppose that AMC would get an insurance payment LESS what the sale amount was, but if I were an insurance company I would be disinclined to pay a loss on something that had enough value to be sold. They certainly would not get a "total failure" payout.


----------



## jefbal99 (Sep 7, 2007)

James Long said:


> How do you sell a satellite AND collect insurance on it?
> Isn't that like selling your wrecked car and expecting insurance to pay "totaled" cost?
> 
> I suppose that AMC would get an insurance payment LESS what the sale amount was, but if I were an insurance company I would be disinclined to pay a loss on something that had enough value to be sold. They certainly would not get a "total failure" payout.


From reading about asiasat-3 that failed back in the late 90s, the insurer paid out the claim, then took ownership of the bird. They then sold it to Hughes who fixed the orbit with the moonshot and had to share profits with the insurance company.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Correct ... but the linked article says _SES_ is trying to sell the satellite, before the insurance company can sell it to someone else. They are attempting to prevent what happened in the case of asiasat-3.


----------



## jefbal99 (Sep 7, 2007)

James Long said:


> Correct ... but the linked article says _SES_ is trying to sell the satellite, before the insurance company can sell it to someone else. They are attempting to prevent what happened in the case of asiasat-3.


Yeah, I missed that part. WTF? How can they sell it and claim insurance?


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Occam's Razor: Maybe the article is wrong. SpaceDaily has been wrong before.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

FTA Michael said:


> Occam's Razor: Maybe the article is wrong. SpaceDaily has been wrong before.


Like this from the article "The US government would then move AMC-14 to a *geostationary orbit inclined at roughly 10 degrees to the equator*".

Guess they have created some new laws of physics.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

Today's ILS newsrelease. Looks like they are making progress on recertification for launching. The review committee meets tomorrow 4/25

http://www.ilslaunch.com/News-042408/


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> Correct ... but the linked article says _SES_ is trying to sell the satellite, before the insurance company can sell it to someone else. They are attempting to prevent what happened in the case of asiasat-3.


I thought the article indicated that SES would have to pay back to the underwriters some of the total loss payout if the satellite was sold by SES.

All this interest gives me some hope that the bird still could be saved.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

spear61 said:


> Like this from the article "The US government would then move AMC-14 to a *geostationary orbit inclined at roughly 10 degrees to the equator*".
> 
> Guess they have created some new laws of physics.


My understanding on geostationary inclined orbits is they satellite ranges from 10° above the equator to 10° below. Technically it doesn't take up a true geosynchronous orbital slot and saves a lot on fuel by allowing it such a wide range.

The tricky part is which services can use such a wide inclination? 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

Your are correct. I checked it out and the definition of "geostationary" can included a fairly wide oscilation.


----------



## dms1 (Oct 26, 2007)

James Long said:


> How do you sell a satellite AND collect insurance on it?
> Isn't that like selling your wrecked car and expecting insurance to pay "totaled" cost?


I don't think you can really compare a satellite to a car. It's not every day that you have to deal with a satellite wreck. 

I would have thought that in the case of high-value claims like this the insurer and the insured would work together closely (possible with other parties too) to minimize the loss to the insurer. This would include looking at all ways to recover some value from the mess.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

My wife totaled a car a few years back ... but it's not every day that I have to deal with a car wreck. If you have a wreck every day please let us know where you drive so we can stay away. 

If it comes down to SES "reducing their claim" by selling off the satellite before collecting the rest in insurance or the insurance company selling to the highest bidder I expect the insurance company will choose the path that makes them the most money. If SES stops the insurance company from salvaging the satellite I would not expect the insurance company to pay ANY claim.

I'm not sure why they are so dead set against DISH getting this satellite ... perhaps they want to lease DISH a different one (once they get it launched) but if they really are obstructing DISH's salvage efforts it can't be good for the long term relationship between the companies.


----------



## dahenny (Apr 16, 2007)

I heard something about the "echostar corp", as opposed to Dish Network, would, in the not too far future, be in direct competition with SES. Maybe that scenario is a factor in the current events.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

From what I saw at the NAB Show, EchoStar Satellite Services Corporation acts like it's going after some of the same customers as SES. But from what the EchoStar folks told me there, they don't actually have any customers yet.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

We won't have to wait much longer to see the players in the game since Echostar has withdrawn their FCC request to "splash" AMC 14.

Perhaps as my mentor, Jacky Gleason would say------ " TO THE MOON!"


----------



## dahenny (Apr 16, 2007)

Wow! The AMC-14 saga gets more weird by the week. Sounds more like Capital Hill.:grin:


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> My understanding on geostationary inclined orbits is they satellite ranges from 10° above the equator to 10° below. Technically it doesn't take up a true geosynchronous orbital slot and saves a lot on fuel by allowing it such a wide range.
> 
> The tricky part is which services can use such a wide inclination?
> 
> ...


Ahhh... with a fixed position longitudinally, and the right dish configuration (or aiming sw) it's something that could be worked out. Consider how small are our dishes that pull in signals from a 19-degree arc (110, 119, 129)... easily 'doable'


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There is a reasonable amount of slop in the design of a multi sat dish ... needed so the same dish can be sold in the north of the country and the south without needing some sort of spacing adjustment for the LNBs. (Do the math ... the angle to neighboring DBS satellites in 9° orbital spacing is wider the closer you get to the equator. A Dish500 effectively receives the signals close to the center of the fix spaced LNBs in the northern US and closer to the outside in the southern US. It is one of the issues that must be delt with if "tweeners" are added. Existing Dish500's will be fine with a tweener at 114.5° as the focus will land between the LNB eyes. All bets are off on tripple DBS dishes.)

But there is a limit ... the LNB eye could probably handle being misaimed by 4° on a single satellite dish, but if that satellite was already catching the edge of the eye the drift would be too much. A consumer DBS dish would not be able to keep the satellite focus reflected properly.

A dish designed to be "sloppier" could handle 10° ... as long as those frequencies were not used within 10°. If you're talking plus or minus 10° that's a lot of slop - and probably an LNB with a special feedhorn that would allow vertical slop (above and below the center of the slot) but reject neigboring slots using the same band.

With this being a Ku DBS satellite the new owner would have to get it to a usable slot that wouldn't interfere with 9° spaced slots with LNBs that are already pretty loose. That means as close to +/- 0° inclined as possible (where consumer DBS service would be possible) or far away from any current DBS slot (target practice?).


----------



## dahenny (Apr 16, 2007)

It may not mean much, but I haven't seen a new TLE (two line element) since Friday. Heavens Above has been real good about updating daily.

http://heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=32708&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

If there are no changes to the orbit, TLE's can be spaced out by quite a bit, several days is very common. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## diospyros (Nov 14, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> My understanding on geostationary inclined orbits is they satellite ranges from 10° above the equator to 10° below. Technically it doesn't take up a true geosynchronous orbital slot and saves a lot on fuel by allowing it such a wide range.
> 
> The tricky part is which services can use such a wide inclination?
> 
> ...


Pardon me for just noting this. I believe you have reversed "geostationary" and "geosynchronous." It is my understanding that a satellite that stays, more or less, above the same longitude is "geosynchronous," while a geosynchronous satellite that stays, more or less, over the equator is "geostationary." By "more or less" I mean probably less than a degree, not in the range of ten degrees. Somebody correct me if I really have this wrong.

A Sirius Radio bird would be a good example of geosynchronous as they appear to swing north and south. The reason they seem to trace a figure-eight is that they speed up as they fall to their perigee and slow down as they rise back to the apogee, which puts them slightly out of phase with their nominal longitude. 
I would think that a DBS satellite is geostationary and stays within a small fraction of a degree of the equator and maintains a pretty much circular orbit which would maintain the same velocity at all times.

I don't really want to get into an argument. I'm not sure how any of this changes the understanding that AMC-14 got off at the wrong exit.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

I found this site informativel.

BUT IS IT GEOSTATIONARY?
Is an inclined-orbit satellite still "geostationary"?

Strictly speaking, no. In Part 2, we defined geostationary as follows:

The orbit must be geosynchronous.

The orbit must be a circle.

The orbit must lie in the earth's equatorial plane.
An inclined orbit is indeed geosynchronous, but it is not a circle and it does not lie in the earth's equatorial plane.

The FCC's definition is less restrictive:

Geostationary Satellite. A geosynchronous satellite 
whose circular and direct orbit lies in the plane of
the earth's equator and which thus remains fixed relative
to the earth; by extension, a satellite which remains
approximately fixed relative to the earth. [2]
An inclined-orbit satellite meets the "by extension" part of this definition as long as it is maintained in the correct east-west position (to avoid interference to adjacent satellites) and at the proper attitude (to keep the antennas aimed correctly).

http://www.ctiinfo.com/SatControl/ComTrack/InclinedOrbitTutorial/satgeom5.htm


----------



## dahenny (Apr 16, 2007)

Things have changed a little bit.

1 32708U 08011A 08129.26823948 -.00000056 00000-0 00000+0 0 499
2 32708 046.3894 157.6152 6958314 007.8393 359.1100 02.23127661 1256

Epoch (UTC): 6:26:16 AM, Thursday, May 08, 2008 
Eccentricity: 0.6958314 
Inclination: 046.3894° 
Perigee Height: 1,146 km 
Apogee Height: 35,573 km 
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 157.6152° 
Argument of Perigee: 007.8393° 
Revolutions per Day: 02.23127661 
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 359.1100° 
Orbit Number at Epoch: 125


----------



## HDRoberts (Dec 11, 2007)

I hope this move is a good sign, but I'm not so sure. The Boeing patent indicates (at least to this novice) that the lunar flyby process begins with several burns that slowly raise the apogee, but not effect the perigee much (increasiing the eccentricity until it starts its way back form the moon). Here it seems the perigee was upped significantly, but the apogee only was raised a little. 

I could be wrong, and this could be the first phase of a lunar flyby. But maybe they are prepping the deorbit maneuver. Or maybe SES is trying to burn fuel so that Dish can't buy it and fix it. The Boeing patent indicates that it would take around 3 weeks, so we'll see soon if they are up to something.


----------



## dahenny (Apr 16, 2007)

If AMC-14 actually changed ownership, the new owner theoretically could work a deal with Boeing.........Or......If the new owner ends up being Charlie, he could just do the maneuver without permission, and tie it up in court for 10 years. :grin: He's pretty good at stuff like that.:lol:


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

I would not put it past him.


----------



## crashHD (Mar 1, 2008)

Can it seriously be flown around the moon and put in GSO for less fuel? If so, that's amazing.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

May 1 comments and speculation on scheduling and insurance- none of it good news for Dish

http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/news...__NEWS_____eedc000c43157b1e_PB&source_type[]=


----------



## dahenny (Apr 16, 2007)

WOW!!!!!

In 32+ hours, the perigee has been raised from 1146 km to 1489 km, with the inclination dropping to 44.3 degrees.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

dahenny said:


> WOW!!!!!
> 
> In 32+ hours, the perigee has been raised from 1146 km to 1489 km, with the inclination dropping to 44.3 degrees.


They are on the move. I extracted this info from their withdrawn FCC application to dunk it Their graphic shows that they planned to end up in the south pacific.

"The de-orbit will be performed by a single re-entry maneuver that will cause the satellite to leave its current orbit and enter a direct re-entry trajectory. This re-entry maneuver might be preceded by a phasing maneuver whose purpose is
to target a given impact zone. This potential phasing maneuver might raise the apogee above the geostationary arc."

The inclination is decreasing. If it goes below that point that allows passage over the south pacific, one can probably assume they are trying to save it.

From earlier post: http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/servlet/ib.page.FetchAttachment?attachment_key=-146515


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

Last set of graphics.

http://www.heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=32708&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

FCC filing with a little more detail from the manufacturer. Sounds like new owner ( "formerly know as AMC-14").

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/servlet/ib.page.FetchAttachment?attachment_key=-147330


----------



## jefbal99 (Sep 7, 2007)

spear61 said:


> FCC filing with a little more detail from the manufacturer. Sounds like new owner ( "formerly know as AMC-14").
> 
> http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/servlet/ib.page.FetchAttachment?attachment_key=-147330


It'll be very interesting to find out who the new owner is


----------



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

For those doing searches at FCC websites the Call Sign for AMC-14 is S2746. This Call Sign should not change even if the owner were to change.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

rocatman said:


> For those doing searches at FCC websites the Call Sign for AMC-14 is S2746. This Call Sign should not change even if the owner were to change.


Thanks for the info. This helps searches


----------



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

If the rumor is true that the U.S. Department of defense bought AMC-14 which I find highly doubtful, you won't see anything in the FCC filings.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

rocatman said:


> If the rumor is true that the U.S. Department of defense bought AMC-14 which I find highly doubtful, you won't see anything in the FCC filings.


Good point.

And, FCC filings coninue as noted above with reference to continuing control.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

I just hope that the satellite formerly know as AMC-14 doesn't change its name to some unpronounceable symbol.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

From the filing ... recovery and restoration operations..."

Dictionary definition of restoration----- "3. a return of something to a former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition. "

Hmmmmm


----------



## HDRoberts (Dec 11, 2007)

Well, from tonight's Tech Forum, it sounds like Dish considers (former) AMC-14 toast. Too bad. Good that they took the time to explain the situation and possible recovery options, though. Assuming what they said was true, I didn't know that the lunar flyby would take a year.


----------



## dahenny (Apr 16, 2007)

Well...the inclination is down to 30 degrees, with the perigee at 6127 km. Somebody's makin use ot the joystick.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

Looks like they are rapidly pushing it up and out of the inner Van Allen belt. And the decreasing eccentricity means there is no lunar flyby. Sure would be fun to be the driver.


----------



## HDRoberts (Dec 11, 2007)

Knock 10 degrees off the inclination and they are pretty well at the original target orbit after the third burn, assording the they guy on the tech chat. The procedures so far seem the match the Super Synchronous Transfer Orbit mentioned. I wonder how much fuel they've got left.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

May 14 marks the 2 month aniversary of AMC 14 failing due to a propellant duct failure. Probably requires a redesign (but not as simple as having Midas change out your muffler).

The question is: When will we hear that things are back on track and have a projected schedule for the Ciel 2 launch (previously scheduled for end of year)?

I'm guessing May 2009 and hope I am late.


----------



## dahenny (Apr 16, 2007)

Someone over at nasaspaceflight.com says: 

"The US government paid $10m for the satellite after a 100% payout ($192m) for the total loss to SES."

As far as I know, that statement hasn't been confirmed.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

Lockheed Martin's SEC filings say that they are still on the hook for some potential contingency losses for a few ILS launches (remaining to launch) after they sold their share of ILS. Could be that they ended up owning the scrap value of 14 when all the dust settled.


----------



## dahenny (Apr 16, 2007)

As of today:

Epoch (UTC): 8:01:55 PM, Wednesday, May 14, 2008 
Eccentricity: 0.4121997 
Inclination: 023.5842° 
Perigee Height: 11,089 km 
Apogee Height: 35,588 km 
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 148.1234° 
Argument of Perigee: 014.5098° 
Revolutions per Day: 01.69469242 
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 226.4350° 
Orbit Number at Epoch: 138


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

dahenny said:


> As of today:
> 
> Epoch (UTC): 8:01:55 PM, Wednesday, May 14, 2008
> Eccentricity: 0.4121997
> ...


They are above the inner van allen belt and in the safe zone


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

FROB concludes first phase of review

May 13, 2008 -- The members of the ILS Failure Review Oversight Board (FROB) have concluded two weeks of meetings in Moscow, and concurred with the Russian investigative commission on the cause of the recent Proton Breeze M failure. Both boards determined that the failure was caused by a ruptured exhaust gas duct, which led to a shutdown of the turbo pump feeding the Breeze M engine.

The next phase is for the FROB to evaluate the corrective actions to be taken before the vehicle is cleared for return to flight for ILS missions. Khrunichev will be performing additional analysis and engine tests that are scheduled for completion in mid-June, after which the FROB will reconvene in Moscow.

http://www.ilslaunch.com/proton-return-to-flight-communication


----------



## dahenny (Apr 16, 2007)

I sure would like to know who REALLY owns it. What in the world would the US gov. do with it?

1 32708U 08011A 08136.94838152 -.00000028 00000-0 00000+0 0 595
2 32708 020.2410 145.3881 3172164 016.0323 187.4225 01.52666253 1400

Epoch (UTC): 10:45:40 PM, Thursday, May 15, 2008 
Eccentricity: 0.3172164 
Inclination: 020.2410° 
Perigee Height: 15,375 km 
Apogee Height: 35,587 km 
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 145.3881° 
Argument of Perigee: 016.0323° 
Revolutions per Day: 01.52666253 
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 187.4225° 
Orbit Number at Epoch: 140


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

dahenny said:


> I sure would like to know who REALLY owns it. What in the world would the US gov. do with it?
> 
> Would not suprise me if it is Lockheed/Martin have their fingers in it with ILS and Dish out of it for now. If they could manage get it into place in the next 6 months with 15 months of fuel remaining, they could get a rental/lease income of 60 million based on a 125,000/month per transponder lease ( something similar to today's rates). Discount that by 50% and they still could net 30 million. That 15 months would cover part of Dish's market shortfall problem with Directv until the new replacement satellite is launched. - about 20-23 months from now. They have little to lose for trying. -- Wish we could see the gas gauge --


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

Getting more frequent updates. - one revolution this time. Stable inclination. Interesting to see if the eccentricity keeps decreasing.

The orbit data is extracted from the following two-line orbital elements, 

1 32708U 08011A 08137.24808561 -.00000027 00000-0 00000+0 0 601
2 32708 020.2575 145.3270 3149459 015.9771 351.3140 01.52164786 1413

Epoch (UTC): 5:57:15 AM, Friday, May 16, 2008 
Eccentricity: 0.3149459 
Inclination: 020.2575° 
Perigee Height: 15,495 km 
Apogee Height: 35,607 km 
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 145.3270° 
Argument of Perigee: 015.9771° 
Revolutions per Day: 01.52164786 
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 351.3140° 
Orbit Number at Epoch: 141


----------



## dahenny (Apr 16, 2007)

Yay! for whoever has the title to it.

1 32708U 08011A 08138.90170873 -.00000030 00000-0 00000+0 0 629
2 32708 019.3668 144.5338 2871920 016.5589 181.5553 01.47494750 1433

Epoch (UTC): 9:38:28 PM, Saturday, May 17, 2008 
Eccentricity: 0.2871920 
Inclination: 019.3668° 
Perigee Height: 16,859 km 
Apogee Height: 35,584 km 
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 144.5338° 
Argument of Perigee: 016.5589° 
Revolutions per Day: 01.47494750 
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 181.5553° 
Orbit Number at Epoch: 143


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

Eccentricity continues to decrease. I think they are trying to save it!


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

A golden oldy. Nice link from 10 years ago explaining various launch methods- 
They are not using the super sync method talked about in the tech update to move this one.

http://www.planet4589.org/space/jsr/back/news.310


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

No movement in 5 days. Out of fuel? or thinking about where to go?

Epoch (UTC): 6:42:20 PM, Thursday, May 22, 2008 
Eccentricity: 0.2876936 
Inclination: 019.4563° 
Perigee Height: 16,846 km 
Apogee Height: 35,605 km 
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 144.3445° 
Argument of Perigee: 017.0926° 
Revolutions per Day: 01.47467319 
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 246.7838° 
Orbit Number at Epoch: 150


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

Looks like a little movement started a couple of days ago- really slow if it is real with Perigee increasing and eccentricity decreasing.

Epoch (UTC): 7:12:32 PM, Sunday, June 08, 2008 
Eccentricity: 0.2860098 
Inclination: 019.4282° 
Perigee Height: 16,933 km 
Apogee Height: 35,610 km 
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 143.5810° 
Argument of Perigee: 018.4856° 
Revolutions per Day: 01.47154443 
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 279.9455° 
Orbit Number at Epoch: 175


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

Definitely movement in the last couple days 

Epoch (UTC): 11:32:22 PM, Tuesday, June 10, 2008 
Eccentricity: 0.2840868 
Inclination: 019.4088° 
Perigee Height: 17,037 km 
Apogee Height: 35,620 km 
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 143.4689° 
Argument of Perigee: 018.6574° 
Revolutions per Day: 01.46772048 
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 354.2470° 
Orbit Number at Epoch: 179


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

Perigee increasing about 45km/day or about 400 days more movement at that rate to reach geostationary orbit (if it has enough fuel).

Epoch (UTC): 8:52:47 PM, Friday, June 13, 2008 
Eccentricity: 0.2813815 
Inclination: 019.3392° 
Perigee Height: 17,173 km 
Apogee Height: 35,617 km 
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 143.2545° 
Argument of Perigee: 018.9745° 
Revolutions per Day: 01.46323247 
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 078.4497° 
Orbit Number at Epoch: 183


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Umm, what about decreasing inclination - you can't be at GSO if it not 0.
Actually they have a lot of fuel, but question is how much they spend for each maneuver and how many will be done before getting to GSO ?


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

rocatman said:


> If the rumor is true that the U.S. Department of defense bought AMC-14 which I find highly doubtful, you won't see anything in the FCC filings.


If the DOD did indeed buy AMC-14, they will probably use it for target practice.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Not good to use a "target" for target practice that is anywhere near the Clarke belt. :nono:


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

First movement in apogee in about a month bumping up about 190 km to point just above geostationary altitude. Perigree still moving slowly up, eccentricity increased a little due to the significant increase in apogee.

Epoch (UTC): 4:32:21 AM, Sunday, June 15, 2008 
Eccentricity: 0.2819813 
Inclination: 019.3037° 
Perigee Height: 17,248 km 
Apogee Height: 35,806 km 
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 143.1873° 
Argument of Perigee: 019.1372° 
Revolutions per Day: 01.45443859 
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 052.6207° 
Orbit Number at Epoch: 185


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Seen a link to posted info about Pentagon ownership of the satellite now.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

Apogee steadily increased 27km/day during last 30 days. This would work out to about 2 more years to reach geostationary if it has enough fuel.

Epoch (UTC): 4:13:54 PM, Sunday, June 22, 2008 
Eccentricity: 0.2723600 
Inclination: 019.1494° 
Perigee Height: 17,656 km 
Apogee Height: 35,648 km 
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 142.7109° 
Argument of Perigee: 019.8667° 
Revolutions per Day: 01.44622949 
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 014.3319° 
Orbit Number at Epoch: 196


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

P Smith said:


> Seen a link to posted info about Pentagon ownership of the satellite now.


Looks like this is credible evidence of the sale.

http://google.space.com/search?q=ca...ews&proxystylesheet=spacenews&oe=windows-1252

James; You might want to remove this thread from the stick list. looks like AMC 14 is a dead issue as far as Echostar/Dish are concerned.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

spear61 said:


> Apogee steadily increased 27km/day during last 30 days. This would work out to about 2 more years to reach geostationary if it has enough fuel.
> <skip>


If you'll calculate addidional time to change inclination from 19 degree to 0, then perhaps add another 2 years.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

P Smith said:


> If you'll calculate addidional time to change inclination from 19 degree to 0, then perhaps add another 2 years.


Eccentricity and inclination have also been steadily decreasing so everthing comes together.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

spear61 said:


> Looks like this is credible evidence of the sale.
> 
> http://google.space.com/search?q=ca...ews&proxystylesheet=spacenews&oe=windows-1252





> SES filed a total-loss claim and expects to receive its $151 million share of the settlement by the end of June. EchoStar Corp. of Englewood, Colo., owned a minority stake in AMC-14 and will receive a payment of around $40 million.


I'm sure Echostar would rather have use of the satellite ... but at least it wasn't a total loss.

So what is the government going to do with it?

It would be nice to think they would play with it for a while, get it in a usable orbit, and sell it to someone who needs it. But that's probably too logical.


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

Now that the gov owns it, perhaps a shuttle mission could place it into another orbit??


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The physics have not changed. Getting the shuttle and AMC-14 at the same altitude is the first problem. Besides, with the limited number of shuttle launches left I doubt if they would want to spend the time on it.

It wasn't the ownership that was preventing a shuttle rescue.


----------



## crashHD (Mar 1, 2008)

For the cost of a shuttle mission, couldn't one buy several new satellites rather than fixing up orbiting space junk?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

crashHD said:


> For the cost of a shuttle mission, couldn't one buy several new satellites rather than fixing up orbiting space junk?


Give that person the prize! Even at the cost of a sidebar on a shuttle mission, I bet you'd be able to get a satellite built and launched. And maybe a ground spare to boot. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

Jason Nipp said:


> Now that the gov owns it, perhaps a shuttle mission could place it into another orbit??


OMG

The odds of getting the shuttle out to AMC-14 are just slightly better than the odds of my Bengals winning a Super Bowl in my life-time.

Edit: Who Dey!


----------



## crashHD (Mar 1, 2008)

Anybody know what ever happened to this thing?


----------



## chainblu (May 15, 2006)

When the shuttle services the Hubble Telescope it is at the very edge of it's operating envelope... about 400 miles above earth. The Clarke Belt (where the sats live) is about 22,000 miles above earth. Even if AMC 14 was stuck at 10,000 miles the shuttle still couldn't get anywhere near it.

So, any "shuttle rescue" mission is just simply impossible.


----------



## spear61 (Sep 19, 2004)

crashHD said:


> Anybody know what ever happened to this thing?


Perigee is still gaining altitude, about 9,000 km since June.

Epoch (UTC): 03:33:33, Saturday, September 20, 2008 
Eccentricity: 0.1204988 
Inclination: 15.8758° 
Perigee height: 26934 km 
Apogee height: 36062 km 
Right Ascension of ascending node: 134.4715° 
Argument of perigee: 31.8419° 
Revolutions per day: 1.17772066 
Mean anomaly at epoch: 346.8389° 
Orbit number at epoch: 313


----------



## DishSatUser (Aug 28, 2006)

James Long said:


> So what is the government going to do with it?


Kinetic Force anti-spy satellite  The beauty of these things is that the sats own mass is all that's needed.


----------

