[amsat-bb] Re: Ride to space
lee-fl at cfl.rr.com
Mon Oct 29 16:40:41 PST 2007
On Monday 29 October 2007 17:07:53 Tony Langdon wrote:
> At 05:26 AM 10/30/2007, Robert McGwier wrote:
> First, I have to say this is fantastic!
> >Intelsat offers both! We are asking for Piggy back for us and will ask
> >for secondary payload should it be required for P3E.
> I'm curious why they're going for it. What's in it for
> Intelsat? Not being picky, just curious how it looks from their
In addition to the policy issues Bob mentioned, the biggest change is that the
launch vehicles have gotten significantly larger. They've grown and
standardized to the point where the price/kg to orbit is not so much driven
by mass but by engineering and production costs. The result is that Intelsat
can host payloads of our expected mass without having to off load a
compensating amount of fuel. Since they can launch fully fueled the impact
to the spacecraft lifetime and their ability to generate revenue is
During my talk at the Symposium I used the WGS and AEHF satellite programs as
examples of GTO launches with excess capacity. They have 1500 lbs and 1000
lbs respectively and there will be multiple flights of each. So there are
also other avenues being explored as well.
More information about the AMSAT-BB