1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

D11 Sat: Launch Date March 19 at 6:48pm ET, Channel 573

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Dave, Jul 20, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dec 6, 2007 #281 of 1715
    rotomike

    rotomike Legend

    229
    0
    Feb 24, 2007
  2. Dec 6, 2007 #282 of 1715
    Sixto

    Sixto Well-Known Member

    12,224
    94
    Nov 18, 2005
    Seems like current launch is delayed until at least January, with D11 being pushed to ~March.

    Wonder if there's any contractual or other reason to skip this launch and move to D11?
     
  3. Dec 6, 2007 #283 of 1715
    Ken984

    Ken984 Active Member

    1,152
    9
    Dec 31, 2005
    Bossier...
    Seems to me they ought to have a resupply ship for this sort of thing. It has to be much cheaper to have a 3rd ship go out rather than have these 2 go all the way back to port and then back out again.
     
  4. Dec 6, 2007 #284 of 1715
    LameLefty

    LameLefty I used to be a rocket scientist

    12,182
    105
    Sep 28, 2006
    Middle...
    The user posting as "Directv 11" has already said they will not skip over Thuraya to get to D11, so it's almost certainly contractual. Possibly penalty clauses or incentives they got to be the "guinea pig" for Sea-Launch's return-to-flight. Perhaps Directv insisted that they NOT be the first RTF launch. Who knows?
     
  5. Dec 6, 2007 #285 of 1715
    LameLefty

    LameLefty I used to be a rocket scientist

    12,182
    105
    Sep 28, 2006
    Middle...
    Mid-ocean resupply is a hugely-complicated and expensive deal. Perhaps a small depot or a contingency contract with a firm in Hawaii or something would not be a bad idea. On the other hand, this kind of several-week delay to unexpected sea states may very well be a first for them.

    However, you also have to consider the ship crew, launch crew and launcher/satellite technicians - they expect a few weeks at sea, not months at a stretch. They probably need a break. Sea-Launch probably also has employment concerns regarding overtime pay/bonuses, contractual requirements limiting the length of time employees may be kept at sea, etc.

    Another factor is the launcher's or satellite's state - it may REQUIRE servicing at a depot-level (i.e., home port). There might be requirements to replace fixed-life batteries in avionics units, heater elements might be time-limited, seals in reaction control systems are usually time-limited, etc. There are probably also limits on exposure to a salt-air environment before mandatory corrosion checks of sensitive components. The satellite is safe in its fairing which is (probably) sealed but it cannot be air-tight or it will explode due to pressure-differential during ascent. Those seals are never completely perfect and may require inspection. The booster itself was rolled out and back in several times, so engine components have been exposed to salt air extensively too.

    So, ALL of these reasons (or none of them :p ) might be playing a part in the way Sea-Launch operates and why they are returning to home port.
     
  6. Dec 6, 2007 #286 of 1715
    RAD

    RAD Well-Known Member

    16,413
    122
    Aug 5, 2002
    Dripping...
    IIRC, Sealaunch has the capability to take two rockets out so they don't need to return to port, if they can wonder if they'll load D11 up when they go back out to help get back on schedule?
     
  7. Dec 6, 2007 #287 of 1715
    dwrats_56

    dwrats_56 Godfather

    381
    3
    Apr 20, 2007
    Columbia, MO
    I have to ask the question. If the Sea Launch Commander can take up to 3 rockets to Odyssey, would they take Thuraya-3 and DirecTV 11 and do 2 quick launches in January?

    RAD types faster than I do.
     
  8. Dec 6, 2007 #288 of 1715
    rotomike

    rotomike Legend

    229
    0
    Feb 24, 2007
  9. Dec 6, 2007 #289 of 1715
    lwilli201

    lwilli201 Hall Of Fame

    3,189
    28
    Dec 22, 2006
    Missouri
    They have this capacity, but I don't think they have ever carried more than one rocket at a time. There would have to be a transfer of the second rocket from the Commander to the Odyssey at sea. There would have to be perfect weather for this to happen. They also may not be able to get the proper insurance for this type of risky maneuver. They may not like the idea of carrying enough rocket fuel for two rockets.
     
  10. Dec 7, 2007 #290 of 1715
    fleadog99

    fleadog99 AllStar

    58
    0
    Jul 14, 2007
    The news coverage was funny. All the guesses as to what it was. It looks like some sort of ferry. hahaha classic. " I though it was some sort of new floating Wal-mart" now that would of been funny.
     
  11. Dec 7, 2007 #291 of 1715
    flipptyfloppity

    flipptyfloppity New Member

    1,073
    0
    Aug 20, 2007
    The news coverage is cool, I think people would have been even more impressed if the reporter correctly told them it was privately owned instead of a military ship.
     
  12. Dec 7, 2007 #292 of 1715
    rotomike

    rotomike Legend

    229
    0
    Feb 24, 2007
    I agree that "a military ship' was a little "out there". It was a funny news clip though. Looks like an oil rig to me and not a ship but i guess some people call it a ship.

    mike
     
  13. Dec 7, 2007 #293 of 1715
    LameLefty

    LameLefty I used to be a rocket scientist

    12,182
    105
    Sep 28, 2006
    Middle...
    That's what it was converted from.
     
  14. Dec 7, 2007 #294 of 1715
    rotomike

    rotomike Legend

    229
    0
    Feb 24, 2007
    I knew that since i read the articles but im just saying it should look like an oil rig to everyone and not a ship.

    mike
     
  15. Dec 8, 2007 #295 of 1715
    mobandit

    mobandit Hall Of Fame

    1,142
    0
    Sep 4, 2007
    US Navy does resupply at sea, very few others, and all of them are other nation's naval forces. No civilian ships do at-sea refueling. It's very dangerous and requires very specialized ships (both to give and receive fuel) in order to carry it out.

    BTW, I was a Command Master Chief of an ammunition ship. Saw a lot of another haze grey ship 140' (yes, 140 feet) away while transferring cargo, mostly bombs, bullets, and missiles. I know what I'm talking about in this one.
     
  16. Dec 14, 2007 #296 of 1715
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    It's interesting that they reported this as a "military" vessel.

    Good thing it was just refueling, so that it could get out of there before December 7th. :D
     
  17. Dec 14, 2007 #297 of 1715
    DIRECTV-11

    DIRECTV-11 AllStar

    60
    0
    Apr 2, 2007
  18. Dec 14, 2007 #298 of 1715
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    Thanks for the latest update. We should think about calling you HAL. :D
     
  19. Dec 14, 2007 #299 of 1715
    LameLefty

    LameLefty I used to be a rocket scientist

    12,182
    105
    Sep 28, 2006
    Middle...
    NASA? That's a funny way to spell "Sea-Launch" ;)
     
  20. Dec 14, 2007 #300 of 1715
    hobie346

    hobie346 Icon

    688
    1
    Feb 23, 2007
    NASA's chart shows Sea Launch as the "Launch Vehicle Customer"
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page