Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Loral Space & Communications -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JMD who wrote (3959)	7/8/1998 2:26:00 PM
From: Valueman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10852

Thanks for the bit about my "cash negative" future. I so look forward to that part! The Hughes situation is truly a unique one, if it involves the whole line of HS 601s. Originally, Galaxy IV was followed by the same problem on Galaxy VII--these two were considered twins, and it would not be so odd to have that kind of trouble in two similar birds. SS/L had the same problem with the solar arrays on two birds, TEMPO and PAS-6--the same bad arrays were used on both sats. They were not used elsewhere though, and that is where the similarity of these two problems could end. There are over 30 HS 601s up there, including 8 PanAmSats and all three DirecTV craft. So you can see where the concern might be great for all those involved. If this is more than just a problem isolated in a few birds, it would definitely be a unique situation. That is the big unknown now. The only certainty is that Galaxy IV is lost, and Galaxy VII and DBS-1 are operating on backup systems due to the failure of the same primary system that doomed Galaxy IV. The rest is speculation and nothing more. The secondary systems on Galaxy IV also failed, but supposedly due to an unrelated problem. Possible effects? The big negative is a total loss of confidence in satellite services due to a perceived lack of reliability. The big positive is the tight transponder rates, the flow of manufacturing jobs to SS/L, the launching of Telstar 6&7, Orion 3 , and SatMex 5 could not come at a better time, etc.

To: JMD who wrote (3959)	7/9/1998 2:00:00 AM
From: Mr. Adrenaline	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10852

Mike, Re:Just when I've convinced myself that I have a 1/2 way decent understanding of the sat biz, along comes this HS601 'anomaly'. I'd like to add to what Valueman said. The near Earth environment is pretty nasty. Not as bad, as say, the near Jupiter, or Sun environment, but still pretty nasty. And while I'm on it, some altitudes or nastier than others. LEO and GEO are relatively benign compared to MEO, for example. That has to do with the Van Allen belts. Anyway, satellites are designed to operate in such environments, and should do just fine if the engineers who designed them and the technicians who built them did their job correctly. So, as far as "risk" goes, in my opinion, I would break it down thusly. Discounting the risk prior to launch, which risk is not zero, I would say that about 60% of the risk is from the time they push the button on the launch vehicle, until the very first acquisition of signal, which is usually about 45 minutes later. This is the period when you put all the chips on the red square and roll the dice, and I find it to be a rush. Which is why I named myself "Mr. Adrenaline". Then another 30% of the risk comes from the period following first AOS until orbit raising is complete (which is usually when the customer accepts delivery). I have been involved in programs where this period has ranged from 6 weeks to 9 months. The remaining 10% come in the remaining life. This is all my opinion, but I don't think too many people would argue it too much. So, what can go wrong? Well, human error is a possibility. Another is fatigue on moving parts (momentum wheels or the solar array slip rings are two candidates that come to mind, but there are other moving parts, too). To all who find this difficult to believe, or like Surfer "Dr. Strangelove" Mike, hadn't considered it before, a good analogy is big commercial aircraft. Since commercial aircraft have people on board, I have got to believe that their respective failure mechanisms are much more exhaustively studied than a commercial satellite. (But, having never worked in the "air" part of aerospace, I can't say this with authority.) And commercial airplanes are continuously being checked by trained mechanics. But, every so often, you'll pick up a paper, read about a crash, and that the FCC is recalling a certain plane because it has had several similar tragedies, and the suspect a design flaw or manufacturing defect. Applied to satellites and using my numbers, that means 90% of the risk is gone when orbit raising is complete. The remaining 10% is for those times when either human error strikes, or an engineer(s) made a design error, or a technician(s) made an error in the manufacturing/integration process. I didn't mean this to be soo long. Hope it helps. Mr A