Very cool. Is <2 years between announcement and expected launch date (early 2014) for a comsat typical?
Quote from: neilh on 06/25/2012 08:23 pmVery cool. Is <2 years between announcement and expected launch date (early 2014) for a comsat typical?It's typically in the 22-26 month range. Record is, IIRC, 17 months.That's the nature of the GeoCom business: GeoCom operators, like the Gallo Brothers, will buy no satellite before its time but then they want it tomorrow.Seriously, time between financial committment and start of productive life is a key profitability parameter in the commercial satellite communications business model, so delivery time ARO is a key feature of a competitive commercial satellite offering.
So with SEP, is the final set of payments made when the satellite arrives on station, or is it a case of payment being made when "launch" has completed. If arriving on station is the case, a small bit of planning and it might be a good option for the GEO operators. Though it does leave people like the satellite builder holding the bag for the six months it takes to arrive on station.
So Antonioe, when does Orbital get paid?
The satellite itself is probably a bit more expensive.
Quote from: antonioe on 06/28/2012 08:59 pmThe satellite itself is probably a bit more expensive. Can I ask how so? You are removing all the tangled plumbing for that messy liquid apogee motor and trading it for a larger Xenon tank and larger SEP motor. 1. While the SEP motor to get to GSO is oversized for station keeping, do you need to buy a separate electric propulsion system for station keeping?
2. Is the larger electric propulsion system more expensive than the now eliminated liquid apogee system?
3. Since the payload is not used going from GTO to GSO, I would assume you would have enough extra power from the panels to not need a larger solar array. So no extra cost?
4. Since the satellite is expected to spend longer in the Van Allen, does that translate into a higher solar panel cost?
{snip}What I DO KNOW is that recently I asked our GeoCom brethren for a quote for a SEP geo bus for a possible proprietary project that was launch-mass constrained and was give a higher (recurring) price for the lighter SEP bus than the (heavier) equivalent hybrid (bi- and mono-prop) of equivalent net payload electrical power. I'd rather not say how much more expensive, but it was not "ignorable."
Xenon - Cost, pure: $120 per 100gArgon - Cost, pure: $0.5 per 100gA two order of magnitude price difference can make a big difference when dealing with the quantities of propellant needed by a satellite. SEP manufactures are slowly reacting.
What I DO KNOW is that recently I asked our GeoCom brethren for a quote for a SEP geo bus for a possible proprietary project that was launch-mass constrained and was give a higher (recurring) price for the lighter SEP bus than the (heavier) equivalent hybrid (bi- and mono-prop) of equivalent net payload electrical power. I'd rather not say how much more expensive, but it was not "ignorable."
I know that doing futurology if you are not Ijon Tichy is very risky, but do you see that price difference getting smaller in the future? I mean, sometimes, it's just because one technology is new (xenon thrusters and power system) and thus expensive, while the other is old and has lots of low cost suppliers (hypergolic kick engines), or is some rather fundamental issue (like stage combustion and gas generator complexity)?