Wow! Now lyngsat has SES 3 moving east now at 67W. I hope it's supposed to be AMC3 that's moving east and maybe I'll live to see the day SES 3 replaces AMC 1 but who knows?
SES 3 @ 67W?
- Thread starter chadg2
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 14
- Views 3K
- Status
I can only assume that SES3 is on some kind of mission related to the infrared sensor system that's on it, but I don't know what mission that might be. I don't think they've even revealed who the owner of the infrared system is.
Has SES 3 still not found a home at 103W? AMC 1 (GE 1) is going on being 16 years old, you would think they would be trying to do what SES 3 was supposed to do, and REPLACE AMC-1.
The commercially hosted infrared payload (CHIRP) for the US Air Force was originally supposed to be on SES 3. But the project was delayed and it was installed on SES 2 instead.
SES-2 satellite with USAF hosted CHIRP completes testing - Airforce Technology
Apparently SES 3 has an undisclosed hosted payload also. But I can't find any information about it.
SES 3 is expected to replace AMC 1 in mid 2012.
SES-2 satellite with USAF hosted CHIRP completes testing - Airforce Technology
Apparently SES 3 has an undisclosed hosted payload also. But I can't find any information about it.
SES 3 is expected to replace AMC 1 in mid 2012.
Interestingly, at http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/ I can find nothing about SES-3. But what I did find was that back in October AMC-1 was granted another 5 years onto it license (until October 2016) to continue at 103 W, and then be de-orbited.
With the migration of North American satellites to greener ($) pastures, I would not be in the least surprised if SES-3 (a brand spanking new satellite!) moved a lot further east!
With the migration of North American satellites to greener ($) pastures, I would not be in the least surprised if SES-3 (a brand spanking new satellite!) moved a lot further east!
SES received FCC approval for in orbit testing of SES 3 only.
SES 3 is a foreign licensed satellite. It was authorized by Luxembourg.
http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=906276
SES will have to obtain FCC approval before SES 3 replaces AMC 1.
SES 3 is a foreign licensed satellite. It was authorized by Luxembourg.
http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=906276
SES will have to obtain FCC approval before SES 3 replaces AMC 1.
Hmm... One satellite tracking website LIVE REAL TIME SATELLITE AND SPACE SHUTTLE TRACKING AND PREDICTIONS now has SES-3 at 46.77 W (IIRC, earlier in the day it was about 48.25 W). If true, its off to somewhere, and not to 103 W!
EDIT: Lynsat (which will be outdated somewhat) now lists it at between 58 and 61.
EDIT: Lynsat (which will be outdated somewhat) now lists it at between 58 and 61.
Perhaps it will drift all the way around and come in from the West.
At it's current rate of drift, it would take about three months to cover 360 degrees.
At it's current rate of drift, it would take about three months to cover 360 degrees.
that's one of my thoughts. When I saw the movement, I got curious if it takes less fuel to move the sat if you put it in an orbit to drift east than if you put it in an orbit to drift the sat west. I know we may be talking that fuel savings only extends the satellite's life for 1 week, but every drop counts when you are unsure what the satellite's future is going to be (problems that require fuel to regain control or future redeployments due to market conditions).
They don't actually drive the satellite e or w, they raise or lower it out of its geosynchronous orbit so the ground moves under it (higher to go "slower" and move west, lower to go "faster" up and go east, both relative to a fixed ground position). So the only fuel burned is to go higher or lower (a small burst to move, a small burst to stop). The fuel use can be quite small as it doesn't take much to get the sat to move and they don't want it to move up or down too fast as it then takes more fuel to stop (kill the momentum).
I know. That's why I said an orbit that makes the satellite drift to the east or drift to the west (because the orbital height is no longer at a point synchronous with the earth). I'm still very curious if it saves fuel to burn the satellite a particular way when you do a relocation (i.e. saves fuel when you burn towards the earth a little bit or burn away from the earth a little bit to get the slow drift going).
What I've read suggests the fuel burn is the same both ways. A geo sat should have only gravity and the rocket thrust acting on it at that height (no atmospheric drag) so no difference if going up or down first. In a practical matter seems like even geo sats have to station keep to counter both n-s and e-w drift (earth isn't round) so any hydrazine used to change orbit to move a sat might be the same fuel they would have used to keep it in one spot.
- Status
Similar threads
