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

SixtoReport: D12 Satellite Info in Post#1 - Live!

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Sixto, Jul 27, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jan 4, 2010 #1881 of 10270
    LameLefty

    LameLefty I used to be a rocket scientist

    12,182
    105
    Sep 28, 2006
    Middle...
    Man, I checked on this less than a hour ago and it wasn't there! :nono:

    Anyhooo . . . I think the Commission would be absolutely foolish to deny Directv's request for the STA. And in fact, I think they will grant it, since as Directv points out, Spectrum Five's arguments are very, very weak.

    I also think the FCC will grant Directv's operational license eventually, either when the parties work out something to make the dispute go away, or when Spectrum Five and/or Ciel never quite get around to launching payloads that utilize the spectrum and their arguments are dismissed as moot.
     
  2. Jan 4, 2010 #1882 of 10270
    jefbal99

    jefbal99 Hall Of Fame

    2,838
    0
    Sep 7, 2007
    It's sad that DirecTV is having to fight this. Reading that response it seems almost sarcastic in nature because Spectrum's request is so asinine.

    Hopefully, this is granted soon and the bird gets to its testing location ASAP :)
     
  3. Jan 4, 2010 #1883 of 10270
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Very easily read response from DIRECTV to the FCC. Basic points:

    1) best to test all the features of the satellite before any go into production serving customers. So let us test it all at 76° while we're testing.
    2) power limits are to protect any adjacent broadcasters from interference. There aren't any at 76° (my editorial: which is why we picked it, ya bozo's [spectrum 5]) so very brief operation outside the limits for testing isn't a problem. (Another between the lines editorial, this time to the FCC: and such testing will give us all more data on power flux densities and power requirements for this new band...) :)

    One very interesting reminder is that the testing will involve pointing each spotbeam at an uplink center and testing them. One after another. With a lot of spotbeams, that could take a few minutes. :)

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  4. Jan 4, 2010 #1884 of 10270
    flyingtigerfan

    flyingtigerfan Godfather

    277
    0
    Feb 16, 2005
    I've been doing a lot of reading in this thread and the attached links, because I just don't have the expertise to add anything. I did, however, find DirecTV's response to the Spectrum Five objection to be entertaining.

    There really should never be a case where a legal-type opposition is so weak that the response to it is, "Dude, you said it yourself. There's no reason not to do this."

    It was just smack-down in nature, and obviously was a weak desperate play by Spectrum Five. But I guess they felt they had to do it.
     
  5. Jan 4, 2010 #1885 of 10270
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    Your explanations (in full) are the ones they should have submitted. :D
     
  6. Jan 4, 2010 #1886 of 10270
    HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    7,384
    196
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    I also find it interesting that if anyone should be concerned about the potential for interference and file protest with the FCC over DirecTV testing and/or exceeding the legal PFD during IOT of the BSS payload, I would think it would be dish Network.

    Considering the main Ku-band uplink for their eastern arc is only 1° away at 77° W and with them being the primary competitor to DirecTV for DBS service. I feel dish would have a lot more of a motive and make a more convincing argument (if there is a real one to be had) with the FCC against DirecTV's IOT of RB-2A due to the possibility for interference.

    Yet dish or Echostar hasn't raised a word of objection so far that I'm aware of ...
     
  7. Jan 4, 2010 #1887 of 10270
    Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    46
    Mar 18, 2008
    DirecTV is doing their test work. They have as much interest in this testing as DirecTV does.
     
  8. Jan 4, 2010 #1888 of 10270
    HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    7,384
    196
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    Possibly so ...

    But I can't believe that if there was any "genuine" (key word here) concerns about the potential for co-frequency interference to other operational systems as Spectrum 5 alleges then dish Network would be jumping up and down right now as well in protest about DirecTV conducting it's BSS payload testing right next door to one of their primary service uplinks.

    Especially considering DirecTV is their rival anyhow ...

    IOW, dish obviously knows there is no real threat of interference from the proposed IOT of D12's RB-2A package at 76°, and I'm happy to see they're not going to bother making an a$$ of themselves with these unsubstantial claims as Spectrum 5 regrettably is.
     
  9. Jan 4, 2010 #1889 of 10270
    LameLefty

    LameLefty I used to be a rocket scientist

    12,182
    105
    Sep 28, 2006
    Middle...
    Indeed. And also of note is the fact that, so far as I know, Spectrum Five doesn't even have a U.S.-licensed payload in operation. What they're doing almost seems like the spectrum equivalent of "cyber-squatting" on a domain name. Unfortunately, while the FCC will eventually rescind any grants if they are not used, I don't know if other countries' licensing agencies do likewise. In other words, if Spectrum Five holds a Dutch license to broadcast to the Netherlands Antilles based on an ITU grant of BSS spectrum to the Netherlands, I don't know if the Dutch agency will ever tell Spectrum Five to crap (build and launch their bird) or get off the pot, as the FCC would.
     
  10. Jan 4, 2010 #1890 of 10270
    cdhinch

    cdhinch Cool Member

    27
    0
    Jan 2, 2009
    All anyone need to do is do a search for lobbyist R. David Wilson. He is the president of Spectrum Five. He was a lobbyist for DirecTV back in 2001, now he is just a thorn in their side.
     
  11. Jan 4, 2010 #1891 of 10270
    smiddy

    smiddy Tain't ogre til its ogre

    15,654
    121
    Apr 5, 2006
    Reading those FCC filings one would certainly get that impression.
     
  12. Jan 5, 2010 #1892 of 10270
    LameLefty

    LameLefty I used to be a rocket scientist

    12,182
    105
    Sep 28, 2006
    Middle...
    New TLE this morning . . .

    Inclination down under 10º and eccentricity reduced a bit. :)
     
  13. Jan 5, 2010 #1893 of 10270
    Sixto

    Sixto Well-Known Member

    12,224
    95
    Nov 18, 2005
    yep ... soon ...
     
  14. Jan 5, 2010 #1894 of 10270
    Sixto

    Sixto Well-Known Member

    12,224
    95
    Nov 18, 2005
    Good progress ...
    Code:
    Name			DirecTV-12
    NORAD #			36131
    COSPAR designator	2009-075-A  
    Epoch (UTC)		01-05-2010 06:48:52
    Orbit # at Epoch	13
    Inclination		9.703
    RA of A. Node		98.502
    Eccentricity		0.4477550
    Argument of Perigee	0.895
    Revs per day		1.46599184
    Period			16h 22m 16s (982.27 min)
    Semi-major axis		32 733 km
    Perigee x Apogee	11 698 x 41 011 km
    Element number / age	15 / 0 day(s)
    
    Lon			173.6770° E
    Lat			9.5257° S
    Alt (km)		17 690.240
    
    [B][U] # [/u] [u]   Date   [/u] [u]Time GMT[/u] [u]Perigee[/u]  [u]Apogee[/u] [u]Chg-Hrs[/u] [u]  Day [/u]  [u]  Long  [/u] [u]  Lat  [/u] [u]Inclin[/u][/B]
    Target (for testing) is 35,786 x 35,786                  76.00°W  0.00°N  0.00°[B][COLOR="Blue"]
    015 01-05-2010 06:48:52 [COLOR="Red"]11 698[/COLOR] x [COLOR="Red"]41 011[/COLOR] +71.94H @ 7.27D 173.68°E  9.53°S  [COLOR="Red"]9.70°[/COLOR][/COLOR][/B]
    013 01-02-2010 06:52:28  5 093 x 38 354 +26.04H @ 4.27D 106.35°W  0.01°S 20.52°
    012 01-01-2010 04:49:48  5,097 x 38,352 + 7.42H @ 3.19D  74.48°W  0.01°S 20.52°
    011 12-31-2009 21:24:51  5,096 x 38,353 + 4.14H @ 2.88D 150.22°E  2.76°N 20.52°
    009 12-31-2009 17:16:34  5,097 x [B][COLOR="Red"]38,363[/COLOR][/B] + 1.47H @ 2.70D 147.75°E 19.10°N 20.52°
    
    [URL="http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=164555"]Post#1[/URL] has the complete history. The last 5 updates are above.
     
  15. Jan 5, 2010 #1895 of 10270
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    22,449
    225
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    Compare to D10, last D12 change happened with 'overshooting' apogee and higher inclination:

    Bumpy ride ?
     
  16. Jan 5, 2010 #1896 of 10270
    LameLefty

    LameLefty I used to be a rocket scientist

    12,182
    105
    Sep 28, 2006
    Middle...
    I doubt it. More likely adjusting the orbital phasing to arrive at 76º rather than immediately at or near 103º - don't be a worry wart. :)
     
  17. Jan 5, 2010 #1897 of 10270
    Hdhead

    Hdhead Hall Of Fame

    1,241
    2
    Jul 30, 2007
    How long of a thruster firing would it take to boost the orbit by this amount? And would it take two burns, one to initiate the change and another to stop the momentum?
     
  18. Jan 5, 2010 #1898 of 10270
    LameLefty

    LameLefty I used to be a rocket scientist

    12,182
    105
    Sep 28, 2006
    Middle...
    That depends on a number of factors, most of which can only be guess-timated poorly - the thrust of the propulsion system being used (whether liquid or XIPS), the current mass of the satellite (which changes constantly at this point due to fuel usage) and the fuel consumption rate of the propulsion system being used. Now, that said, orbital mechanics isn't so much about how long the propulsion system is fired for, or about raising altitude per se, but it's more about changing the speed of the vehicle relative to the center of the earth, and thus the altitude and shape of the orbit.

    Typically, for simple orbital maneuvers, you change the height of apogee (the highest point of the orbit) by a velocity change at perigee (the lowest point) and vice versa. You don't do one burn to start an orbital change and another to stop it, you just change it the one time. However, for large, long-duration communications satellites, it seems the more typical approach is the one Directv is using - many small maneuvers over a period of weeks in the interest of fuel efficiency and to give time for full spacecraft systems testing.
     
  19. Jan 5, 2010 #1899 of 10270
    HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    7,384
    196
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    Best guess LL.;

    While raising perigee this way is certainly understandable, and maybe even somewhat behind D10's perigee at the same time in orbital history, what is your thinking behind raising the apogee to over 41,000 Km?
     
  20. Jan 5, 2010 #1900 of 10270
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    22,449
    225
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    Sometimes longer over-burn could happen ;).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page