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

Official: D10 in orbit testing, national beams ok, problem with spotbeams

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by bonscott87, Sep 14, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MikeR

    MikeR Hall Of Fame

    1,157
    0
    Oct 5, 2006
    Think well Lame. While disappointing, I'm certain many are interested in the root cause (or an educated hypothesis). I'd lean towards a systems problem, as it appears that more than one spot beam is affected. Not a good scenario for the other spot beams though...
    Edit: I"m wondering the same c152
     
  2. gully_foyle

    gully_foyle Hall Of Fame

    1,301
    5
    Jan 18, 2007
    Los Angeles
    Depends what you mean by "HD capability." In the boonies called "Los Angeles", we have only 5 stations, missing 2 "VHF" locals plus 3 PBS stations. One of those missing locals carries an awful lot of Dodgers and Laker games....

    Waiting for SWB, since the new sat breaks OTA diplexing.
     
  3. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    182
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    If you're going to correct someone, do it correctly. Styx is a river between Earth and the Underworld according to Greek Mythology. Sticks is one of the nicknames given to decidedly rural areas.

    There used to be a place in Oregon named Sticks. That was back before the Spotted Owl. Of course we also have such creative names as Boring and Drain.
     
  4. Dolly

    Dolly Hall Of Fame

    2,179
    0
    Jan 30, 2007
    In my area we have some names I wouldn't even post on the Forum :eek2:
     
  5. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    182
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    D12 in its D10-like configuration can only replace birds at 99W or 103W. To replace anything else would require a complete refit with Ku downlink equipment.

    D12 would appear to be strictly a spare.
     
  6. LameLefty

    LameLefty I used to be a rocket scientist

    12,182
    105
    Sep 28, 2006
    Middle...
    Um, yes. Exactly. E.g., launch it as a replacement for D10 and shift D10 to the role of limited on-orbit spare. Just like I suggested.
     
  7. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    182
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    We have some of those too. Most of the derogatory native American names have already been replaced. I think half.com is now back to being Halfway, Oregon.
     
  8. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    182
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    I didn't gather that from your post.

    I guess that we'll have to find out where D11 is in the production phase to know if D12 is anywhere near being ready.
     
  9. LameLefty

    LameLefty I used to be a rocket scientist

    12,182
    105
    Sep 28, 2006
    Middle...
    If it turns out to be a physical issue with the spacecraft, that's actually more encouraging to me than an internal systems problem with the spacecraft processors or RF equipment. Physical issues can be caused by many things, not the least of which is unusual launch loads or vibrations. With any luck this will be traced to some anomaly with the Proton/Breeze-M launch and the D11 launch on SeaLaunch's Zenit will be unaffected. Without eve better luck, it will be traced to something fairly mundane like a batch of bad fasteners or a subcomponent that missed an acceptance test somewhere but the paperwork was never completed - something that's easy to fix.

    Without such luck, the issue will be traced to a design flaw in the implementation of the reflector that cannot be remedied absent excess impact to spacecraft mass or power requirements, and the entire D10/11/12 config thrown out. At least the D12 spacecraft bus is on-order and presumably not too far along to modify - if nothing else the configuration can be changed and it can be launched with any necessary fixes in place.
     
  10. Bill Johnson

    Bill Johnson Legend

    104
    0
    Apr 3, 2003
    I wonder if in Post #1 Scott may have left out an important part of the D* press release reporting this -- shall we call it -- anomaly? I reprint the quote below and a quick search could find it in only one other release, a July 31 one reporting additional TiVO features. Forgive me, but the wording tops anything I've seen written by any bureaucrats during my many years of govt. service. Sheeeshh!

    This says to me you believe anything in this D* release at your own peril.

     
  11. kaysersoze

    kaysersoze Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    261
    0
    Feb 28, 2006
    +1
     
  12. MnGuy

    MnGuy Legend

    128
    0
    Sep 24, 2006
    No. This is standard language for companies making forward-looking statements that will be read by the investment community. You don't want to be sued by some group of investors when you make claims that don't come to fruition due to unforseen circumstances.
    That's all this is.
     
  13. c152driver

    c152driver Legend

    127
    0
    Jan 21, 2007
    It looks like the standard boiler-plate disclaimer text to me. I've seen and heard this before from other publicly traded companies.
     
  14. Bill Johnson

    Bill Johnson Legend

    104
    0
    Apr 3, 2003
    You may be correct, but why wasn't it in other D* releases potentially as much forward looking if not more than this -- for example those discussing the then upcoming D10 launch and all the good things in the Fall.

    Also, the next to last sentence is kind of frightening for all of us hoping hoping that MPEG4 would be a new day dawning for national HD PQ for D*!
     
  15. MikeR

    MikeR Hall Of Fame

    1,157
    0
    Oct 5, 2006

    Not a big deal....basically these are projections based on our best knowledge, but we are not accountable/liable for these statements.
     
  16. gully_foyle

    gully_foyle Hall Of Fame

    1,301
    5
    Jan 18, 2007
    Los Angeles
    It was written by government bureaucrats. Worse, they were employed by Congress. That's the Safe Harbor language that allows you to talk about the future without being criminally liable for it not coming true.
     
  17. Bill Johnson

    Bill Johnson Legend

    104
    0
    Apr 3, 2003
    I understand, but again why specifically only in this press release which seems pretty cut and dried on the impact D* anticipates; whereas it does not appear in other earlier major D* releases on really huge things D* anticipates down the road?
     
  18. Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    I am just pulling this out of my semi-educated behind, but it could be due to the very sensitive nature of what's going on right now. When a publically traded company has issues with a piece of 100+ million dollar equipment, they have to be extremely careful with everything they say and do. I can guarantee you that PR received VERY close scrutiny from the legal department before they let it out. They just want to make sure everything is covered.
     
  19. jautor

    jautor Mentor

    31
    0
    Jul 28, 2006
    Because this wasn't a press release, but a financial disclosure... Press releases are marketing material, this is an investment document. And yes, definitely financial release boilerplate. Nothing to see here... :)

    Jeff
     
  20. Bill Johnson

    Bill Johnson Legend

    104
    0
    Apr 3, 2003
    This is a good point, but the only problem is it's listed as a PR on D* website. And going all the way back to 2002, earlier releases listed below it in order, discuss money bigtime, planned satellite launches, anticipated mergers, etc., you name it! And none have this cautionary statement except this one & the one about TiVO!

    I won't belabor it more, but it looks extraordinary to me!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page