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