 |
 |
|
Published:
2001 |
|
NOTE: The three earlier volumes have a case study for each of the satellites that form the basis for this volume. Therefore, this report will not be sold individually. Vol. 1, Vol. 2 or Vol. 3 must be purchased prior to or at the time of purchasing Vol. 4. |
|
Phones: +1-301-831-6700 Within each manufacturer's product line, we
determine the actual delivery performance (as compared to the
original expectations), the trend line, the first of a series
delivery time, the number of transponders, the GTO mass, the RF
power and the specific RF power. These are grouped with each product line. Operators can make very good estimates of how long the fuel will last in a satellite in orbit. This defines when a replacement satellite will be needed. A less exact element is the time needed to be allowed to order, construct, test and launch a new satellite. Satellite users (transponder lessees) need to know when to expect new capacity when choosing between operators. This is especially true for the new Internet via satellite service providers (StarBand, DirecPC, AlphaStar, etc.) when large amounts of new capacity are needed to sustain growth. To keep the comparison valid, these volumes are limited to commercial FSS and BSS geostationary satellites, thus there are no MSS, LEO, MEO, etc. satellites. Since these reports deal with deliveries, only satellites that have been launched are included. We have separated out first of a new series schedules. This is usually the most time-critical launch. The other satellites in the operator's series are generally identical (except for orbit-slot related antenna patterns) but may include improvements if there was a problem with the first satellite in the series. The time between launches in a series is referred to as the gap in Volumes 1 to 3. This can also be seen in the time-bar charts in those volumes. The data in these four volumes provide a starting point in a long sequence that will eventually result in the selection of a source for a spacecraft. Many other factors will be involved in the selection including price, terms and conditions, trade barriers, vendor and other financing, insurance, etc. If you are an operator (or perspective operator), you already have some idea of what your satellite will need. The starting point should be the adding up of the transmitter powers. For example, if there are ten active 20-watt C-band transponders and 30 100-watt Ku-band tubes, the total RF power is: (10 x 20) + (30 x 100) = 3,200 RF watts. A more traditional way has been to use the geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) mass. During the preparation of this study, we developed a new experimental metric that may be a better selection tool. By combining the RF power and launch mass, the ratio defines the specific RF power in RF watts per GTO kilogram (or W/kg). A graph has been prepared for each platform family showing the specific RF power (RF watts per GTO kg). The equation of a straight line fitted to the data is provided. Effectively, the specific RF power becomes a
ratio of revenue potential to cost and thus is an economic
indicator. The total RF power is a good indicator of the revenue
potential of the satellite. The
higher the power, the higher the lease rates per transponder. The GTO mass is directly related to the launch cost and to a lesser extent to the satellite cost. Both combine, with insurance, to form the in-orbit cost of the satellite. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Related Satellite Delivery
Reports If
you are interested in purchasing this report or for further information,
please contact us using the information below. |
|
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER 2723 Green Valley Road Clarksburg, MD 20871 E-mail: info @ communications-center.com Telephone: 1-301-831-6700 Facsimile: 1-301-865-5577 |
*Prices subject to change without notice.
© 2006 The Communications Center. All rights Reserved.