What's happening with the Sat Launch?

[olliec420]

They have insurance for that kinda stuff. No one lost any money but the insurance co. I work at a fairly large law firm as the IT Director and one day I was helping someone with their computer and I noticed what they were working on was some insurance litigation for a company that insures satellites. I was thinking, what are the chances of having to pay to replace one. Probably a good money making racket until something like this happens.

 

[Sponge14]

I just wanted to point this out to all of you that are whining about who they picked to do the launch, the stupid Russians, blah blah blah. While I am certainly no fan of anything Red, did anyone read that update on spaceflight now? One of the paragraphs read:
"Friday's launch was the 45th for ILS since it began Proton missions in 1996. Five of those flights have been unsuccessful, and four of the failures were caused by upper stage malfunctions. "

So out of 45 missions to space, only 5 have met with a failure of some sort. Given the incredible complexity of throwing a piece of metal into space and making it stay there, I would say a record of 40-5 is pretty damn good.

 

[skyviewmark]

I just wanted to point this out to all of you that are whining about who they picked to do the launch, the stupid Russians, blah blah blah. While I am certainly no fan of anything Red, did anyone read that update on spaceflight now? One of the paragraphs read:
"Friday's launch was the 45th for ILS since it began Proton missions in 1996. Five of those flights have been unsuccessful, and four of the failures were caused by upper stage malfunctions. "

So out of 45 missions to space, only 5 have met with a failure of some sort. Given the incredible complexity of throwing a piece of metal into space and making it stay there, I would say a record of 40-5 is pretty damn good.

Not if your one of the 5 that failed...

 

[wtb955]

I just wanted to point this out to all of you that are whining about who they picked to do the launch, the stupid Russians, blah blah blah. While I am certainly no fan of anything Red, did anyone read that update on spaceflight now? One of the paragraphs read:
"Friday's launch was the 45th for ILS since it began Proton missions in 1996. Five of those flights have been unsuccessful, and four of the failures were caused by upper stage malfunctions. "

So out of 45 missions to space, only 5 have met with a failure of some sort. Given the incredible complexity of throwing a piece of metal into space and making it stay there, I would say a record of 40-5 is pretty damn good.

So you'd be willing to take your chances if we threw you on one of their launch vehicles?

 

[hockeynut5150]

"Friday's launch was the 45th for ILS since it began Proton missions in 1996. Five of those flights have been unsuccessful, and four of the failures were caused by upper stage malfunctions. "

and 4 out of 5 failures being caused by the same malfunction is a good thing?

 

[John Kotches]

The bad thing is with the last launch failure, we all thought Charlie had a back up plan. Then we found out that there was none and blamed lack of hd on launch failures. I wonder if Chuck has a back up plan??? Did he learn from the last launch??

We will see, and it better be "SOON"

When the plan is to put new capacity up, and your paths to get new capacity up are both blocked, there isn't much you can do.

D* was lucky that they got their birds up last year.

Also on a + side for the upcoming D* launch, SeaLaunch shot another bird up prior to this one.

I think ILS has two failures in a row.

Also, it is important to understand that anything less than having the satellite in its intended orbit is a launch failure.

 

[duckydan]

The US is going to rely on Russia for all launches into space soon. NASA is retiring the last of their shuttles so moreso than trusting satellites with the Russians we're going to be putting humans on their ships so I'd start trusting them a little bit with their launches.

 

[AriesGodofWar]

I just wanted to point this out to all of you that are whining about who they picked to do the launch, the stupid Russians, blah blah blah. While I am certainly no fan of anything Red, did anyone read that update on spaceflight now? One of the paragraphs read:
"Friday's launch was the 45th for ILS since it began Proton missions in 1996. Five of those flights have been unsuccessful, and four of the failures were caused by upper stage malfunctions. "

So out of 45 missions to space, only 5 have met with a failure of some sort. Given the incredible complexity of throwing a piece of metal into space and making it stay there, I would say a record of 40-5 is pretty damn good.

Yeah, that is an 89% success rate, however, if you owned one of the 5 and spent tens of millions of dollars to develop, produce, and implement your sat to have it explode, or go lost in space, an 11% failure rate is unacceptable. I sure hope that this is salvagable somehow. The situation we are in is at least better than if it had exploded, or failed to separate the payload. I wonder, if they lose your satellite, or blow it up, do they still charge you for the launch??

 

[John Kotches]

Also, we have a perfectly good space shuttle docked at a space station yet nobody can come to the rescue. I can see a case now being made for a permanently docked mini shuttle or something to be the world's first galactic on call towing service.

How do you know it would be the first in the galaxy? It's not like we're advanced enough to have checked out the entire galaxy

Are the two orbits compatible with the available fuel the shuttle has? Is the shuttle designed to carry the extra mass at landing?

More questions than answers I'm afraid. I'm not an orbital mechanics guy.

 

[John Kotches]

and 4 out of 5 failures being caused by the same malfunction is a good thing?

I'm no expert, but I would guess that each failure has had a unique cause.

That doesn't make the failures good either.

 

[Rangers484]

Yeah, that is an 89% success rate, however, if you owned one of the 5 and spent tens of millions of dollars to develop, produce, and implement your sat to have it explode, or go lost in space, an 11% failure rate is unacceptable. I sure hope that this is salvagable somehow. The situation we are in is at least better than if it had exploded, or failed to separate the payload. I wonder, if they lose your satellite, or blow it up, do they still charge you for the launch??

I admit I know nothing about this but the info on ILS says they are based in McClean, VA. Are they a Russion Company or do the Ruskies sell the Cosmodrome time to private companies?

 

[rdinkel]

I admit I know nothing about this but the info on ILS says they are based in McClean, VA. Are they a Russion Company or do the Ruskies sell the Cosmodrome time to private companies?

Is a joint US/Russian venture--using Russian rockets.

 

[greg47]

Amc 14

Charlie will have a back up plan. I am sure ILS/Russians know exactly where the satellite is, they just have to figure out what the next step is. If they can not get the booster motor to ignite then they will try to seperate it from the satellite and use the satellite's onboard fuel to get it into the correct orbital position. If it is in a 17,000 mile orbit it can use its on board fuel to get in the correct orbit, with the downside being a shorter in orbit life. They have used a lunar pass by orbit to insert satellites before so it not something new. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. I will say Charlie has not had very good luck over the years getting his satellites into orbit in good useable condition. He has to be asking himself what do I have to do to get a break.

 

[darrencp22]

Great logic there! This thread is amazing, you guys sound like you lost your dogs.

Rocket failures while unfortunate do happen, it's the nature of the beast, that is why the sats are insured.

I think its a very logically question to ask. This has happened twice now. And i stand by my comment on Russian manufacturing. They have a notrorious reputation in the intenational community for poor/spotty workmanship and cutting corners. Just look at engineering history.

 

[tnsprin]

Is a joint US/Russian venture--using Russian rockets.

In the past ILS has used US Atlas rockets. So they are probably not Locked into any one nations rockets.

 

[JoeSp]

Am I missing something here? First we did not know if the satellite was destroyed and now we know that is not destroyed but short of its goal. That in of itself is a good thing. Now the real questions are: Can they get that satellite up to its correct orbit and posistion at 61.5? How long will that take and how many years will that take off the sat's life? While this might be as much as a 6 month setback for E*, if the sat can be posistioned properly there just might be something Charlie can do to continue his plans -- but those questions must be answered first!

If they can get the sat to 61.5 but will lose half the shelf life then that will be excellent news as given 6 t 7 years I am sure a replacement sat can be put into orbit and E*'s customers will get their HD!

 

[spam.curitiba]

looks like I am done with Dish.......Direct here I come...

 

[smjames23]

I think its a very logically question to ask. This has happened twice now. And i stand by my comment on Russian manufacturing. They have a notrorious reputation in the intenational community for poor/spotty workmanship and cutting corners. Just look at engineering history.

You mean like that anomaly that happened in Pripyat, Ukraine?

 

[darrencp22]

Like i said earlier. If the end result is having to use booster to move into proper orbit, and losing 7 years of life, I dont think it is a complete disaster. That gives it 7 years of life and plenty of time to think of a plan to not only replace this bird but your overall coverage as well.

Especially since it is not E's bird.

 

[skyviewmark]

looks like I am done with Dish.......Direct here I come...

You guys crack me up.. And you must not know Charlie. Yes it's a setback for the moment. But it is not the end of DISH.. Charlie will find a way to turn this into a win.