SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (5277)10/5/2006 9:21:49 PM
From: pcstel  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 8420
 
Right. If you don't count the hundreds of millions extra cost of the third satellite already in orbit and the fourth satellite (a GEO, by the way) they are having to launch to provide adequate reception (

ROTFLMAO!!

Good God man. You are so full of WRONG INFORMATION that it is deplorable.. LOL!

The "fourth satellite" as you call it is in ground storage and was delivered in April 2002.. (This is the one that my friends in Palo Alto at Loral dropped in the High Bay). There are no plans to launch the spare at this time. The GSO that has been ordered from SS/L currently has no home. No licensed Orbital Location. No assigned TT&C links, and No feederlink authorizations. This type of "contengent order" is common in the Fixed Satellite Manufacturing business.. Look at Wild Blue.. They ordered GSO Birds back in the later part of the nineties, cancelled, then renewed, and the first bird was finally launched in 2004.

Hint: You don't build a 200 million dollar satellite when you don't know what frequecy, modulation scheme, link budgets, etc. you have to work with.

Here is what the SEC statements have to say..

Satellites, Terrestrial Repeaters and Other Satellite Facilities

Satellites. Space Systems/Loral, the manufacturer of our satellites, delivered our three operating satellites to us in July 2000, September 2000 and December 2000, following the completion of in-orbit testing of each satellite. Our fourth, spare satellite was delivered to ground storage in April 2002.

So, they are not ordering a GSO to provide adequate reception. Heaven knows that NGSO satellites with a look angle that reaches 90 degrees provide much better reception than a GSO with a ~20 degree look angle. First of all.. They are closer to the earth to start with.

Which totally shoots down your argument (in fact, totally making the counterargument) that a Molynia orbit provides better signal at lower cost. In the instance of Sirius, it did NEITHER.

Well, it shoots it down when you are working with Rayian FACTS.. LOL!! I keep telling you.. Your self-importance complex is causing all of these problems..

Let's see what the FCC has to say on this issue..

5. Authority for three satellite system enhancements is requested by this
modification application: (1) authority to increase the number of satellites from two to three, plus a ground spare; (2) authority to place three satellites into inclined and elliptical (non- geostationary) satellite orbits; and (3) authority to use the 4/6 GHz frequency band on a non- harmful interfering basis for telemetry, tracking and command ("TT&C"). We find that grant of Sirius' modification application will provide the public with an improved satellite DARS system that relies on fewer terrestrial repeaters and offers more channels within the existing spectrum allocation.


Hmmm.. The FCC seems to have found that the grant for modification to SIRI's SDAR license to a NGSO Molynia Orbit was justified because.. and I quote..

"We find that grant of Sirius' modification application will provide the public with an improved satellite DARS system that relies on fewer terrestrial repeaters and offers more channels within the existing spectrum allocation."

Now, who you gonna' believe.. David Ray from Poedunk Arkansas.. Or The Federal Communications Commission??

You two bunk mates keep on laughin'. Somehow I get the feeling that you are only laughing at yourself..

And so it goes,
PCSTEL