SJ - Thanks for the excerpt from Barron's.
This is the longstanding problem with ORBI- they can't seem to do things 100% right. Example: Several years ago they were launching (from a B52, before the L-1011) and they thought they had a problem, so they tried to abort the launch. Not only were they wrong about the problem, they failed to abort the launch, with the result that in spite of themselves, they got a good launch. Example: A recent launch was postponed because the feds got on them about what ORBI somewhat misleadingly told us was a "software" problem. Turned out, they had decided (without clearance from DOT) to change their procedure for handling excess propellant in the third stage, and went back to the old way of doing things (retaining it on board rather than venting it). Retaining on board had resulted in an explosion on someone's vehicle (mebbe not ORBI's) a year or so before, and the creation of a load of new orbiting debris, and venting was subsequently required by the DOT. So, while "software" was indeed at issue, because everything is controlled by software, this was really a very substantive problem, a major failure to comply with regulations, and they basically lied to us.
Also, if 8/10 have experienced a problem, it stretches credulity to call it an anomaly. Seems more like bad design. Their decision to add another brace of 12 sats could be, as they say, driven by anticipated demand, or it could be to compensate for reduced coverage areas . . . .
I think we'll be lucky to reach 50 again by the end of the year. Still, that will be a double and then some. |
