DISH files SEC form 8-K with AMC-14 Comments

**darrencp22** · 03-17-2008 12:26 PM

Now the matter is back in the hands of the science geniuses at Lockheed, I have full confidence they'll figure it out. How long, who can say? But no more dealing with Kazakhstan and their Russian partner who manufactures the Proton.

**cebbigh** · 03-17-2008 01:18 PM

Great news that they have decided to work on getting use out of AMC14 instead of just scrubbing it and copping out by going straight after the insurance money. It will be very interesting following their efforts to get it where it needs to go.

One thing for certain, with all the scheduled launches there will be a great deal of suspense weighing in around here for some time to come. Makes you appreciate pointing your dish at a little speck in the sky all the more.

**Scott Greczkowski** · 03-17-2008 01:18 PM

Why not? They have the best record for successfull rocket launches.

I would not have an issue as all with the next launch also going up from Kazakhstan via a Proton Rocket.

As a smart man name Forrest Gump once said, "It Happens"

**harshness** · 03-17-2008 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Scott Greczkowski

Good Job finding all of this.

Hear hear!!!

**mike123abc** · 03-17-2008 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Scott Greczkowski

Instead of a jet burst non stop pushing it into orbit, you will instead probably have little engine squirts, enough to keep it moving forward to where it has to go, when it starts to slow down it gets another squirt of gas to give it more thrust.

Actually out in space it does not really make a difference. There is no atmosphere to slow it down, no friction. They need a certain amount of force to move, the issue is how much force can the onboard thrusters put out, and how long can they fire before they have to rest (i.e. cool down). They should just end up cycling them on and off as they feel comfortable with the thrusters. Each time they fire it will move into a slightly higher orbit.

I guess next years bill will include a 12 cent/month satellite thruster charge. 12 cents/sub/month over 5 years is 100million, assuming 100 million lost in lease fees from the shorter life.

**harshness** · 03-17-2008 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by rglore

I said it would take hours, not minutes like the launch vehicle would.

Given the limited forces (less gravity, light pressure and no friction) acting on the satellite at this point, it doesn't take a whole heck of a lot of power to get it moving. Once moving, it doesn't take much, if anything, to keep it moving.

As you say, it all comes down to time and opportunity windows.

**K9SAT** · 03-17-2008 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by mike123abc

I guess next years bill will include a 12 cent/month satellite thruster charge. 12 cents/sub/month over 5 years is 100million, assuming 100 million lost in lease fees from the shorter life.

DONT GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS!

**TuxCoder** · 03-17-2008 01:34 PM

SES AMERICOM - Press Release

The investigation into the cause of the AMC-14 launch anomaly has reached a definitive conclusion. Engineers from SES Americom and ILS worked jointly to explore the causes behind the premature completion of the second burn of the fourth stage on the Proton Breeze-M rocket.

The study concluded with the discovery and analysis of a "trojan horse" module resident in the rocket's thruster control firmware. The module, named killall-burn.o, was found to simply terminate the burn at a significantly incorrect—and inconvenient—time, hoping to render the satellite useless by placing it in an incorrect orbit.

Further study of the module revealed that it was compiled on a node with the name build.directv.com, presumably built by a software developer working for DISH Network's largest competitor, DIRECTV. A spokesperson from DIRECTV declined to comment at this time.

Of course, I'm just kidding. None of the above is true. ;)

**mike123abc** · 03-17-2008 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by goaliebob99

DONT GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS!

Unfortunately the cost per sub was probably the first calculation they made..

**AdamGott** · 03-17-2008 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by harshness

Given the limited forces (less gravity, light pressure and no friction) acting on the satellite at this point, it doesn't take a whole heck of a lot of power to get it moving. Once moving, it doesn't take much, if anything, to keep it moving.

As you say, it all comes down to time and opportunity windows.

Well one could imagine that it would take almost as much fuel to slow it down as it does to get it started moving which would be one more reason for it to be a slower movement.