Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by P Smith, Mar 15, 2008.
May not be an SES issue. Had they actually received the satellite?
If ACM-14 has enough fuel aboard to shoot it off toward the moon, why don't they shoot it off toward the sun instead of burning it up in our atmosphere. Will it all burn up? Maybe Boeing has a patent for that procedure. :sure:
So - only press releases are accurate news sources?
You can do your own specualtion - it will have same value for us.
The press release would have been a place to put the blame on the company it's suing, if it that had been accurate (or defensible) and SES had been so inclined. That it wasn't mentioned suggests that either that the third-party report wasn't entirely accurate or that SES doesn't feel like bringing it up.
Probably not something SES wants to bring up "officially" in a press release if the lawsuit issue is that touchy.
Chances are that SES looked at the total cost of this mess and concluded that it would have to launch another sat in 4 years and balanced that cost in to the loss and payment from the insurance. The decision was probably easier then we think. All that talk about patents was nonsense. If they were serious about doing the moon orbit recovery method they would have just done it.
Is it de-orbiting now? http://www.n2yo.com/?s=32708 shows it below 500 miles and dropping.
I agree that the patent discussion is nonsense (although the patent itself sounds ridiculous).
It's too bad it couldn't be recovered...
This episode comes down simply to how best to minimize the financial losses.
It won't be in any official release because the two companies are still engaged in unrelated litigation. This has been leaked (and all the aerospace press has mentioned it now, pretty much), probably as a bargaining chip.
Escape velocity for the earth-moon system is higher than what the satellite can do, almost certainly. On the other hand, from a highly-elliptical orbit, a loop around the moon (or at least relatively close to the moon to use its gravitation to alter an orbit) is potentially do-able, depending on the fuel load of the satellite and the mass of the spacecraft. MUCH less energy required than escaping altogether.
This is where Dish paid the price for leasing and not owning the satellite. Four years service to Dish would have been invaluable since it would have given them time to get a replacement up, and would avoid the risk of losing market share if they fall behind on their product offering. However, SES aren't bothered by any consequential losses to Dish - they just need to do what is financially best for themselves.
I tend to agree. However, the article mentioned the ongoing $50M lawsuit between Boeing and SES, and the fact that Boeing made it clear they wanted to connect the two. If SES went ahead and maneuvered AMC-14 Boeing could stand up in court on the other case and rightfully state that SES knowingly and intentionally violated Boeing's patent. It wouldn't look too good for SES. Remember that the insurance is paying out, so all SES will lose out of this is the profit they would have made from Dish over the life of the deal, which is probably worth less than the value of the ongoing litigation.
29000m/s to crash into the sun vs 10m/s to crash into earth
It's good to see that this thread has now gone off-topic with an AMC-14 discussion as opposed to being off-topic with a discussion on available HD channels. Hopefully D11 will do something interesting soon and we can get back on topic.
It would be interesting to know what agreements were in the contract between dish and SES. Penalties, etc.
I never said it would be easy. :lol: :lol:
there's not been any new TLE for AMC-14 since Wednesday ... anything on n2yo is just a simulation based on the 48 hour old TLE ... and since the orbit is non-circular it always looks like it's going up or down significantly: http://heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=32708&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=EDT
The real shame of it all is that it appears that it could have been recovered, be it for a shorter lifespan, if not for legal red tape mumbo jumbo. It just plain stinks.
It would be REALLY tricky to get that into court (speaking as a lawyer now, not a former spacecraft engineer). It would probably be declared inadmissible as irrelevant by the judge and excluded and if it wasn't, SES would then explain that the patent was invalid and that Boeing was trying to patent gravitational interactions of the sort identified and quantified by Sir Isaac Newton 300 years ago. That sort of thing would backfire on Boeing.
And that's the last time (hopefully) I have to put on my lawyer-hat in this thread. :lol:
You'd think the insurance company would take ownership, pay the $150M, and then sell the sat to the highest bidder, any $ is a bonus unless theres some legal reason they are not incented to try.