Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!WMartin@Office-3
From: WMartin%Office-3@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Lost Satellites
Message-ID: <16571@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Feb-84 16:09:00 EST
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.16571
Posted: Thu Feb  9 16:09:00 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Feb-84 10:02:01 EST
Lines: 66

From:  WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)

Re the statement in Space #114: "Indonesia gave NASA permission
to deploy its satellite Monday morning..."

Did the Indonesian government or telecommunications authority
have a chance to review the data about the launch and loss of
Westar, or was this "permission" something more like a long-since
pre-arranged "Go ahead, our ground stations are ready", as
opposed to "We have analyzed the data and think a deployment is
worth the risk of losing the satellite"?  If the latter, how does
this affect the insurance payment -- if I was the insuror, I
would charge them with participatory negligence (or some such
legalese) to try to get out of paying.  Who is the insuror,
anyway?  Lloyds of London?

Who owned the Indonesian satellite, by the way?  Did the
Indonesian PTT or government take title before deployment, or
does it still belong to the manufacturer?  If I was buying one, I
would think that I would not accept title or delivery until a
fully-functioning satellite was in the proper orbit, but I guess
that would be the most expensive way to go.  Assuming the risks
should drop the price, I suppose.

If whoever had the authority had had the sense to cancel the
deployment of the Indonesian satellite and left it in the cargo
bay to be brought back, what problems would that cause?  It's "n"
kilograms of unplanned weight still aboard for landing -- would
that have had any effect?  How about the still-fueled booster?
(I'm thinking here of the way military planes dump unexpended
ordnance before landing -- is there a similar danger?)

How long would it take to check out a returned satellite/booster
and reschedule it for a future shuttle mission?  How long will it
NOW take to build another satellite and booster and schedule it
for a future deployment?  (Plus the time to redesign those lousy
boosters...)  Are these commo satellites being churned out on an
assembly line now, or are they still handcrafted one-of-a-kind
made-to-order items?

The balloon burst was embarassing, but still an internal NASA
problem.  The satellite losses, even if thy were no fault of
NASA's, are failures to deliver the results promised (or at least
strongly implied!)  to customers.  This is BAD NEWS from a PR and
future sales standpoint.  Especially if it turns out that
something like launch vibrations screwed up the boosters, NASA
won't be able to get out from under the blame by claiming to just
be "delivery truck drivers".  If they didn't have any
restrictions on getaway specials and cargo items, and just sold
space aboard at set prices on a first-come, first-served basis
[yeah, probably the USSR would buy up all the facilities!], they
maybe could get away with that attitude.  But they don't do that,
so they get stuck with the responsibility.  If I was the insuror,
my lawyers would be tying NASA up in legal actions for years --
how extensively were the boosters tested, what information did
you have after the first deployment, what did you tell the
parties involved, etc., etc.  And the insurance rates for any
future shuttle satellite deployments would be astronomical.

I fear this mission is going to have long-lasting ill effects on
the future of the shuttle's commercial use.  It will take two or
three absolutely perfect missions in a row to erase this stigma.
The saddest part is that I doubt that NASA was at fault, so they
are getting shafted without any justification.

Will Martin