AMC-23 And Boeing Connexion

[SpaceKiwi]

<i>SES Americom has announced that the AMERICOM-23 (AMC-23) satellite that was launched on December 29, 2005, has successfully completed a full battery of in-orbit-tests and is now operational from its assigned location of 172 degrees East.<br /><br />As of today, the large, high-powered, C/Ku-band satellite, is providing services to customers including Connexion by Boeing, a provider of in-flight high-speed Internet service, on the Ku-band payload as well as various commercial and government customers on the C-band side.</i><br /><br />LINK<br /><br /><br />I can confirm this sucker is booming into NZ!<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

It is interesting how Boeing and Lockheed's evolution to larger and larger heavy boosters has resulted in the big private equity firms that control the primary satellite consortiums having larger and fewer satellites built with more and more transponders on them. At the same time, as analog Ka and Ku has been giving way to digital signals (where formerly one analog channel required one transponder, now up to 8 digital channels can share the same transponder), has led to more and more channel proliferation, and helped to expand the data services sector of sat communications. Smaller network, satellite and cable companies wind up as mere transponder leaseholders on large monolithic satellites.<br /><br />However, launch costs since the early 1990's have dropped by less than 40% and has only come around by the enlargement of payloads and the vertical integration of launch companies with satellite makers (both Boeing and Lockheed have a division for each).<br /><br />This indicates that, as the major launch companies have essentially abandoned the small and micro launcher market, there exists opportunities for small independent operators to launch microsats with transponders built with MEMS components. The company that develops a MEMS transponder will blast open the market for microsats and small/micro launcher builders.<br /><br />Furthermore, there exists the potential for microsatellite builders to launch LEO comsats that operate packet routed networks with each other in LEO to get around the latency problem of GSO distance and miniaturize data and video antennas from 18" dishes to much smaller monopole or helical antennae that are much more low profile. Given how many housing developments prohibit dishes on one's roof, leaving apartment, condo, and CCR-limited homeowners prey to "the cable snake", transition to dishless satellite communications for video and data is the next big potential market.

 

[shoogerbrugge]

I doubt there is such a large market for small Rockets dedicated to launch Micro/Nano sattelites. I think the economies of scale involved with launching satellites makes the kilo/to orbit price more favouralbe for clustered launches of medium sized Launch Vehicles, as currently done with Russian ICBMs and the Cosmos 3M. <br /><br />The only gap I see in the launch industry is for the market of medium sized GTO and LEO sattelites. The Delta II is too expencive and I do believe that this LV is bound to be replaced by something of the private industry. The Delta II recently lost one of its few commericial payloads to Starsem and other launch awards have gone to Land Launch and Ariane Space in this category. <br /><br />I was surprised by SpaceX's move to skip the Falcon V and move directly to the Falcon IX. The chances of SpaceX competiting for heavy GTO markets seems slim, better try to replace the Delta II and Atlas II.

 

[mlorrey]

Actually, my research says the opposite. The CubeSat project is charging $40,000 to launch a 1 kg nanosat. UP Aerospace is charging $40k-$50k /kg (actual item mass range from 1 gram to 25 grams, prices from $50-$995) to launch collectible mementos on suborbital trips. This is more than the big launchers charge to go to GTO.<br /><br />Lockheed and Boeing have been trying to consolidate the comsat market in larger and larger satellites and launchers as a means of market control. There are a lot of smaller comsat operators, and potential operators, who do not want to be a timeshare tenant of one transponder on a big satellite, particularly ones who are market entrants against the big comsat consortiums or are foreign countries seeking to not surrender control of their media content to foreign influence for cultural reasons. These customers would flock to microcomsats.<br /><br />While the Russian ICBMs are a significant value, they are expendables. SpaceX is partially reusable, so once Musk gets the economics of reusability figured out, you can expect his launch prices to drop significantly, even below Russian prices.<br /><br />The Falcon IX is not a heavy lifter, it is a medium lifter. It compares to the Delta IV Medium. Musk would need to strap three IX's together to get a heavy lifter to compete against the D4 Heavy, or come out with his BFR (assuming it isn't just a bit bigger than the RS-68).<br /><br />The market for micro and nano sats is taking off, and while the total dollar amounts don't impress the big guys much, it is an excellent market for guerilla entrepreneurs to break into and gain experience in launch operations with small launchers and small financial risks.<br /><br />Big heavy comsats fit a mindset that also tends to believe in big cities, corporate monopolies, overbearing governments, and one-size-fits-all, any-color-you-want-so-long-as-its-black economics. Bigger is not always better.

 

[egom]

If SpaceX can do it cheap, the russians can do it cheaper. Do not minimize their capacity to adapt. RKK Energia can be considered an independent contractor since I assume that more than 75% of the income comes from the free market. I have a feeling that the current prices for launches work for them.<br />However if a competitor brings on the market a launcher that is cheaper than theirs I estimate that in at most 2 years the Russians will have a cheaper option. <br /><br />EgoM

 

[mdodson]

"It is interesting how Boeing and Lockheed's evolution to larger and larger heavy boosters has resulted in the big private equity firms that control the primary satellite consortiums having larger and fewer satellites built with more and more transponders on them."<br /><br />I think that's due to the limited number of slots available in GEO. I don't know what the minimum angular separation is, but if you want more capacity in a limited area without the complexities of running a constellation, bigger is the way to go.

 

[mdodson]

"...having larger and fewer satellites built with more and more transponders on them..."<br /><br />Search on ITU + orbital slots, and read all the fussing about how slots are allocated. It's not surprising to me that satellite builders and launch companies have wanted to maximize capability for each mission.<br />