A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit vehicle.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: JSH:Twin primes probability correlation
Next: SpaceX says Falcon 9 rocket test fire is a success
From: J. Clarke on 30 Mar 2010 01:28 On 3/29/2010 11:22 PM, Pat Flannery wrote: > On 3/29/2010 2:04 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > >> So is there a "generic" set of requirements published anywhere for a >> satellite? If it was practical to mass-produce generic satellites that >> will satisfy all customers don't you think someone would be doing it by >> now? > > That's how commercial comsats are designed. > Individual countries purchase satellites of the same design: > http://www.ssloral.com/html/satexp/intelsat.html So let's see, a company makes 30 satellites for Intelsat Corporation, and from that you conclude that "different countries purchase satellites of the same design". There are approximately 300 active geostationary satellites which means that approximately 270 of them are _not_ of the "generic" design that you linked. And then there are all the non geostationary satellites--Inmarsat and Iridium and GPS and providers of numerous other services. So how are you going to make a one size fits all generic satellite that does all those jobs and doesn't require an Orion to put it up?
From: hallerb on 30 Mar 2010 07:55 On Mar 30, 1:28�am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 3/29/2010 11:22 PM, Pat Flannery wrote: > > > On 3/29/2010 2:04 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > > >> So is there a "generic" set of requirements published anywhere for a > >> satellite? If it was practical to mass-produce generic satellites that > >> will satisfy all customers don't you think someone would be doing it by > >> now? > > > That's how commercial comsats are designed. > > Individual countries purchase satellites of the same design: > >http://www.ssloral.com/html/satexp/intelsat.html > > So let's see, a company makes 30 satellites for Intelsat Corporation, > and from that you conclude that "different countries purchase satellites > of the same design". > > There are approximately 300 active geostationary satellites which means > that approximately 270 of them are _not_ of the "generic" design that > you linked. �And then there are all the non geostationary > satellites--Inmarsat and Iridium and GPS and providers of numerous other > services. > > So how are you going to make a one size fits all generic satellite that > does all those jobs and doesn't require an Orion to put it up? The companies who NEED the back up capacity join together to build back up sats. Now the backu may not be optimized for wherever it ends up but will be far better than nothing. Plus once a actual replacement arrives the fast fill in can be sold or leased and moved to a new location. your a small business owner who owns a van for deliveries but when it breaks down you use your car, its not convenient or efficent but it gets the job done........ there was a whole story about this some years ago, KSC was to get a dedicated facility with generic sats in storage
From: J. Clarke on 30 Mar 2010 09:25 On 3/30/2010 7:55 AM, hallerb(a)aol.com wrote: > On Mar 30, 1:28�am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> On 3/29/2010 11:22 PM, Pat Flannery wrote: >> >>> On 3/29/2010 2:04 PM, J. Clarke wrote: >> >>>> So is there a "generic" set of requirements published anywhere for a >>>> satellite? If it was practical to mass-produce generic satellites that >>>> will satisfy all customers don't you think someone would be doing it by >>>> now? >> >>> That's how commercial comsats are designed. >>> Individual countries purchase satellites of the same design: >>> http://www.ssloral.com/html/satexp/intelsat.html >> >> So let's see, a company makes 30 satellites for Intelsat Corporation, >> and from that you conclude that "different countries purchase satellites >> of the same design". >> >> There are approximately 300 active geostationary satellites which means >> that approximately 270 of them are _not_ of the "generic" design that >> you linked. �And then there are all the non geostationary >> satellites--Inmarsat and Iridium and GPS and providers of numerous other >> services. >> >> So how are you going to make a one size fits all generic satellite that >> does all those jobs and doesn't require an Orion to put it up? > > The companies who NEED the back up capacity join together to build > back up sats. And of course they all agree on a feature set and all are willing to pay the cost to launch the features they don't want or need. > Now the backu may not be optimized for wherever it ends up but will be > far better than nothing. How is something that doesn't do the required job "better than nothing"? > Plus once a actual replacement arrives the fast fill in can be sold or > leased and moved to a new location. Moving satellites isn't like moving cars in a parking lot. You act like it's a trivial task. And where are you going to move it to? > your a small business owner who owns a van for deliveries but when it > breaks down you use your car, its not convenient or efficent but it > gets the job done........ As a small business owner I don't pay millions of dollars for a car when I need a truck either. > there was a whole story about this some years ago, KSC was to get a > dedicated facility with generic sats in storage What do you mean "was to get"? Are you saying that it got as far as NASA requesting funding from Congress or are you saying that somebody was talking about it in a bar one night and Avleak decided to run with the story?
From: hallerb on 30 Mar 2010 09:49 On Mar 30, 9:25�am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 3/30/2010 7:55 AM, hall...(a)aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 1:28 am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> �wrote: > >> On 3/29/2010 11:22 PM, Pat Flannery wrote: > > >>> On 3/29/2010 2:04 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > > >>>> So is there a "generic" set of requirements published anywhere for a > >>>> satellite? If it was practical to mass-produce generic satellites that > >>>> will satisfy all customers don't you think someone would be doing it by > >>>> now? > > >>> That's how commercial comsats are designed. > >>> Individual countries purchase satellites of the same design: > >>>http://www.ssloral.com/html/satexp/intelsat.html > > >> So let's see, a company makes 30 satellites for Intelsat Corporation, > >> and from that you conclude that "different countries purchase satellites > >> of the same design". > > >> There are approximately 300 active geostationary satellites which means > >> that approximately 270 of them are _not_ of the "generic" design that > >> you linked. And then there are all the non geostationary > >> satellites--Inmarsat and Iridium and GPS and providers of numerous other > >> services. > > >> So how are you going to make a one size fits all generic satellite that > >> does all those jobs and doesn't require an Orion to put it up? > > > The companies who NEED the back up capacity join together to build > > back up sats. > > And of course they all agree on a feature set and all are willing to pay > the cost to launch the features they don't want or need. > > > Now the backu may not be optimized for wherever it ends up but will be > > far better than nothing. > > How is something that doesn't do the required job "better than nothing"? > > > Plus once a actual replacement arrives the fast fill in can be sold or > > leased and �moved to a new location. > > Moving satellites isn't like moving cars in a parking lot. �You act like > it's a trivial task. �And where are you going to move it to? > > > your a small business owner who owns a van for deliveries but when it > > breaks down you use your car, its not convenient or efficent but it > > gets the job done........ > > As a small business owner I don't pay millions of dollars for a car when > I need a truck either. > > > there was a whole story about this some years ago, KSC was to get a > > dedicated facility with generic sats in storage > > What do you mean "was to get"? �Are you saying that it got as far as > NASA requesting funding from Congress or are you saying that somebody > was talking about it in a bar one night and Avleak decided to run with > the story?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Florida talked about putting up bucks for the facility. To get more jobs at KSC. Actually moving clark belt birds is pretty easy, companies like dish network do it all the time. Either quit stationkeeping and they begin moving with minimal fuel use, or go the other direction burning fuel This sort of fast replacement would be for emergency use. Now just IMAGINE if a satellite TV provider suddenly had a major sat loss. They could lose a substantial amount of business plus with 11 million subscribers they cant just go repointing dishes. I will look around for a reference, it was on the old florida today website years ago
From: hallerb on 30 Mar 2010 09:52
> > your a small business owner who owns a van for deliveries but when it > > breaks down you use your car, its not convenient or efficent but it > > gets the job done........ > > As a small business owner I don't pay millions of dollars for a car when > I need a truck either. > You would if it were profitable enough |