-
#200 by input~2 on 06 May, 2008 08:46
-
The discussion on Proton-M/Briz-M resuming launches continues in a dedicated thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=12380&mid=275369#M275369
(The link is changed - anik) -
#201 by Orlin on 09 May, 2008 04:20
-
Is there any news about the fate of AMC-14? Will it be deorbited or something else?
Thanks. -
#202 by input~2 on 09 May, 2008 05:58
-
Something may be in the works...
a) On May 2 Echostar withdrew their previous request to the FCC for authorization to dive AMC-14 in the South Pacific
b) AMC-14 perigee has been recently moved up from 775km to 1146km and inclination has been slightly reduced by 2.6 degrees
-
#203 by Orlin on 09 May, 2008 10:15
-
Thank you for the answer. I would really appreciate any further information for the developpment with the satellite.
-
#204 by krrr on 12 May, 2008 21:58
-
Now 6127x35597 km at an inclination of 30.02 degrees.
Incredible. Do they actually have sufficient propellant to reach GSO without high apogee or lunar encounter scenarios?
-
#205 by krrr on 12 May, 2008 22:14
-
Well OK. Probably this is going on.
-
#206 by risktaker on 13 May, 2008 20:24
-
Yes, that is what is happening. The US government paid $10m for the satellite after a 100% payout ($192m) for the total loss to SES.
-
#207 by krrr on 15 May, 2008 08:01
-
Now 11090x35588 km at 23.58 degrees inclination.
-
#208 by pm1823 on 15 May, 2008 09:37
-
Quote
risktaker - 13/5/2008 3:24 PM
Yes, that is what is happening. The US government paid $10m for the satellite after a 100% payout ($192m) for the total loss to SES.
Public source, pls? Or it's insider' info?
$192m just too big, and $10m just too small payment for me.QuoteMark Rigolle, Chief Financial Officer of SES commented: 'The loss of any satellite is a disappointment, and the failure of AMC-14 means there will be no revenues to come from this programme. However, SES is fully insured for its investment, and there will be no negative P&L impact from the accelerated writedown of AMC-14. We expect to receive the insurance proceeds of approximately USD 150 million in the next few months, thereby enhancing our cash position. The rest of our business in North America and worldwide has no connection with, and is unaffected by, this launch failure.'
-
#209 by risktaker on 21 May, 2008 19:09
-
$150m for SES and $42m for Echostar (who was anchor customer). The purchase amount is in the public record, although not confirmed as being the selected option...see Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC-14_(satellite)
-
#210 by kevin-rf on 22 May, 2008 18:26
-
Quote
risktaker - 21/5/2008 3:09 PM
$150m for SES and $42m for Echostar (who was anchor customer). The purchase amount is in the public record, although not confirmed as being the selected option...see Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC-14_(satellite)
wiki is not a first source...
It sources an april 23rd spacedaily article as the source on the bid http://www.spacemart.com/reports/SES_Negotiating_To_Sell_AMC-14_To_US_Government_Agency_999.html and does not source the payouts or the counter offer...
So we are back to the origonal question... -
#211 by Danderman on 25 Jun, 2008 18:58
-
http://ilslaunch.com/news-061608
Maybe this is old news:
"MOSCOW, June 16, 2008 – The Failure Review Oversight Board (FROB) convened by International Launch Services (ILS) has cleared the Proton Breeze M to return to flight this summer, following its examination of test results and analysis regarding a redesigned engine component."
-
#212 by Danderman on 04 Jul, 2008 05:25
-
OK, something that I am not understanding, there were earlier posts about varying burn times for the Briz-M stage. but it occurred to me that since Briz-M is more or less loaded with the same amount of propellant for each mission, how can burn times vary by much among different missions?
-
#213 by yinzer on 04 Jul, 2008 06:18
-
OK, something that I am not understanding, there were earlier posts about varying burn times for the Briz-M stage. but it occurred to me that since Briz-M is more or less loaded with the same amount of propellant for each mission, how can burn times vary by much among different missions?
Many short burns vs. fewer long burns. It appears that the problem was an exhaust duct heating up and burning through - it could presumably cool down during coast periods. -
#214 by PDJennings on 07 Jul, 2008 14:05
-
OK, something that I am not understanding, there were earlier posts about varying burn times for the Briz-M stage. but it occurred to me that since Briz-M is more or less loaded with the same amount of propellant for each mission, how can burn times vary by much among different missions?
It has to do with perigee raising strategy for GTO missions. Some missions use an intermediate revolution with apogee altitude ~5000 km. Other missions skip this revolution and rely on a really long perigee burn instead to get apogee all the way to 35786 km. The mission profile depends on payload mass and customer preferences (e.g. mission duration, separation longitude). -
#215 by Danderman on 09 Jul, 2008 05:26
-
The implication is that Briz-M is not really suitable for interplanetary missions, without some unusual mission designs.
-
#216 by PDJennings on 09 Jul, 2008 14:05
-
The implication is that Briz-M is not really suitable for interplanetary missions, without some unusual mission designs.
Not at all. Launching to GTO (~1500 m/s) from Baikonur is actually harder than a planetary mission in that you have to add a perigee raising/inclination reducing maneuver onto the end of it. That's why Proton missions to GTO are so long (7-9 hours for Block DM or Breeze M).
For a Breeze M planetary mission, you would still use the intermediate revolution, but then burn to depletion at the last perigee crossing, instead of cutting off when Ha = 35786 km. With careful selection of the launch instant, no plane change should be required. The mission duration would even be shorter (~4 hrs).
Proton, or any Russian LV, is well-suited to using a launch instant because they don't use the count and hold rigamarole of US launchers. Launch time is more like an appointment. If you miss it, you are done for the day. Lots of pad is in the schedule to make sure the chance of hitting the launch time is high. -
#217 by cneth on 09 Jul, 2008 14:55
-
Proton, or any Russian LV, is well-suited to using a launch instant because they don't use the count and hold rigamarole of US launchers. Launch time is more like an appointment. If you miss it, you are done for the day. Lots of pad is in the schedule to make sure the chance of hitting the launch time is high.
This is an interesting topic, and one I've long been interested in - is there a thread on the forum already to discuss 'countdown designs?' I'd love to see a discussion of both the history of them as well as how you'd do it if you could start over.... -
#218 by Danderman on 09 Jul, 2008 15:32
-
For a Breeze M planetary mission, you would still use the intermediate revolution, but then burn to depletion at the last perigee crossing, instead of cutting off when Ha = 35786 km.
Its that "burn to depletion" part that is the issue.
