Dish's FCC Filing on E-14 Satellite to 119 W
- Thread starter rocatman
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 134
- Views 24K
No, they are two totally different satellites in two different locations. You'll notice the beams are much different.
I just took the link in post 55 and started changing the numbers from B1 to B22 and A1 to A28 I found 50 spotbeams. Looks like I missed B24 because B23 drew a blank.
I just noticed today that anik over at Nasaspaceflight officially list E14 as going up an a Proton. Never should have doubted you, rocatman.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1133.990
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1133.990
Well, it seems ILS is Dish's preferred launcher these days. Nimiq-5, E14, Quetzsat-1 all going up on Proton/Briz. E15 probably headed there, too.
You should never doubt a fellow Clevelander. Regarding Dish using Protons, the recent bankruptcy of Sea Launch puts a great deal of doubt into them meeting schedule and their ability to perform successful launches. I think ILS now has a handle on the Briz M problems and now use a five burn mission for the Briz M. It takes longer for the satellite to be released from the Briz upper stage but it reduces the thermal loading which caused the AMC-14 failure.
Didn't know you were from Cleveland
. Still, intersting they don't use Arianespace, either. I suspect Dish sats are too heavy for launching a second sat, thus making Ariane 5 not cost effective? How about United Launch Alliance? Typically doing government payloads, but they have done commercial now.Didn't know you were from Cleveland
I think cost is the big factor with ILS especially with Ariane. Scheduling with the United Launch Alliance with their government payloads that typically get preferential scheduling make them less attractive.
Regarding payloads. The planning documents for ILS indicate a 4-5 stage payload in excess of the 6308 kg listed in the filings for E14. Payload max is more than 6350 and less than 6400 kg.
Interesting find. I think there is a misnomer in what you are showing because what the chart shows is for using a Briz upper stage with 5 burns not stages which implies 5 separate rocket stages i.e., first stage, second stage ets. The 5 burns appears to be the standard number of burns used now especially after the loss of AMC-14 that only used 3 longer burns. The failure investigation concluded that the longer burns caused a thermal failure on the upper stage. They did make a design change to try to eliminate this thermal problem but ILS is still using only 5 Briz burns for its Proton missions. I still think the weight of E-14 is less than what is reported because I don't think that much propellant will be loaded onto it.
They are quite specific about payload and go up to 6360 kg on their data tables. Why would anyone not load the max manuvering fuel for a 12-20 year life if the launch vehicle supports it and the manifest lists it?
http://www.ilslaunch.com/assets/pdf/pmpg_2e.pdf
http://www.ilslaunch.com/assets/pdf/pmpg_2e.pdf
One factor could be the possibility of the launch vehicle under performing its stated nominal capabilities which leaves the satellite in a lower orbit than planned or perhaps in an orbit that the satellite thrusters can't fix. There are also reasons not to fill propellant tanks to their maximum capacity because of over pressure risks. Reducing the propellant load reduces the risk of over pressurization or putting it another way, the margin that the satellite propellant system has on over pressurization is increased with a lower propellant load. In addition, it is rare that a current day satellite runs out of propellant prior to other on board failures that make it destined for a grave yard orbit. Certainly E-5 was the exception but that was because of an altitude control failure having nothing to do with the propellant system. E-4 won't run out of propellant, its batteries are spent because of the lack of solar power. E-2 had a massive electrical failure that ended its life.
After examining the Proton Mission Planners Guide you provided, it appears on page 2-2 that the difference in perigee altitude for the Geo Transfer Orbit (GTO) is 2100 km less for a payload with a mass of 6360 kg versus onewith a mass of 5645 kg. The inclination is also greater for the higher mass payload (0 degrees inclination is what is needed for a Geostationary orbit), 31 degrees versus 23.3 degrees. Therefore the satellite itself has to do more thruster firing to circularize the orbit and remove the inclination.
Last edited:
Not sure if this is new data but I saw this with the release date of yesterday:
http://licensing.fcc.gov/ibfsweb/ib.page.FetchAttachment?attachment_key=-165508
Entire app:
FCC INTERNATIONAL BUREAU
http://licensing.fcc.gov/ibfsweb/ib.page.FetchAttachment?attachment_key=-165508
Entire app:
FCC INTERNATIONAL BUREAU
They have considered that point. The complete planning document package includes the documentation for contigency launch fuel required to assure reaching final orbit (something like 45kg for 99+ probablility). Still less than the manifest weight.
It's a large file (19 MB) and loaded with fascinating info about how the Proton system works.
http://ilslaunch.com/assets/pdf/pmpg_r6.pdf
The head bumping continues between Dish/Echostar and Spectrum Five with this latest salvo from Spectrum Five.
http://licensing.fcc.gov/ibfsweb/ib.page.FetchAttachment?attachment_key=745828
A little background. Dish/Echostar contend that the Spectrum Five satellite needing coordination is a "phantom" and does not exist. Per the 2006 license, it must be launched in the next year or it loses it's license for US transmissions.
Spectrum has to "coordinate" with Dish/Echostar also and Dish/Echostar say they have not even opened the door.
Additonally, when the Spectrum license was granted, there was a condtion that Spectrum had to submit the gxt contours needed for analysis by date certain. They did submit gxt files, but changed their design from a 4 beam system to a twenty some beam system for that submission and never resubmitted their Schedule S to reflect the change in number of beams (making it impossible to calculate EIRP levels). I put in a request for the updated Schedule S and was told by FCC that I should request it direct from Spectrum Five and FCC can not talk about it.
http://licensing.fcc.gov/ibfsweb/ib.page.FetchAttachment?attachment_key=745828
A little background. Dish/Echostar contend that the Spectrum Five satellite needing coordination is a "phantom" and does not exist. Per the 2006 license, it must be launched in the next year or it loses it's license for US transmissions.
Spectrum has to "coordinate" with Dish/Echostar also and Dish/Echostar say they have not even opened the door.
Additonally, when the Spectrum license was granted, there was a condtion that Spectrum had to submit the gxt contours needed for analysis by date certain. They did submit gxt files, but changed their design from a 4 beam system to a twenty some beam system for that submission and never resubmitted their Schedule S to reflect the change in number of beams (making it impossible to calculate EIRP levels). I put in a request for the updated Schedule S and was told by FCC that I should request it direct from Spectrum Five and FCC can not talk about it.
I smell "greenmail". I wonder if Spectrum Five is trying to lease the 114 slot to E*?
