Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihlts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe
From: rjnoe@ihlts.UUCP (Roger Noe @ N41:48.5, W88:07.2)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Lost Satellites
Message-ID: <358@ihlts.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Feb-84 17:03:24 EST
Article-I.D.: ihlts.358
Posted: Mon Feb 13 17:03:24 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Feb-84 05:34:13 EST
References: <16571@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 89

>>	Did the Indonesian government or telecommunications authority
>>	have a chance to review the data about the launch and loss of
>>	Westar . . .

They were told everything that was known.  Their decision was apparently
based on the reasonable belief that the malfunction was not a systematic
error, and was thus very unlikely to occur again.  Presumably they
contacted their insurers first.  Wouldn't you?

>>	Who is the insuror, anyway?  Lloyds of London?

It's a consortium of American and European companies, headed by Lloyds.
The Palapa satellite was insured for $75 million (U.S.).

>>	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 . . .

If I were the manufacturer, I would never let my satellite go before the
customer paid for it.  Of course, if it malfunctioned I'd have to cough up,
but that's another story.  The customer does not have much choice because
there are only a few such manufacturers and lots of buyers.

>>	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?

Well, they would still have to pay NASA for using up so much space in the cargo
bay of the shuttle and probably have to pay a penalty for bringing down the
mass again.  This kind of stipulation is not unheard of.

>>	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?

To check out the satellite/PAM would not take long, but you're going to have
a very tough time rescheduling it on the shuttle any time soon.  It could be
years.  As far as I know, this is an ordinary Hughes HS376 (or something like
it) which means they're all the same except for the transponder frequencies
(I think).  The PAM's do not have to be redesigned, the previous sucesses
show that.  They do have to be debugged to find out what systematic error is
causing this and how many PAM's are affected.  Then both satellite owners
have some preferential treatment in rescheduling deployment by the shuttle.

>>	The balloon burst was embarrassing, but still an internal NASA problem.
>>	The satellite losses, even if th[e]y 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 . . .

Yes, the rendezvous target mishap was embarrassing.  This might have been
avoided had the cargo bay cameras been working properly.  I've seen the
GAS (get-away special) contracts, and NASA makes no representations about
results whatsoever.  I assume the comsat contracts are even stricter.

>>	If [NASA] 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 . . . they maybe could get away with that
>>	attitude [of just being truck drivers] . . . 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 . . .

Virtually all the restrictions placed by NASA on cargo involves safety of the
crew and the vessel.  They do not arrange for boosters for satellites, nor
are they responsible for testing them.  As long as they're satisfied that
they're safe.  The people to go after are the makers of the PAM's, McDonnell
Douglas Astronautics Co. and Morton Thiokol.  The owners of the satellites
each make their own arrangements with these companies.  NASA has almost
nothing to do with it.  It'll probably end up on Thiokol's doorstep, if
anyone's at all.  The only reason no lawyers have even hinted at taking
legal action against NASA is because there is not one legal cause for
action.  It would be fruitless.

>>	I fear this mission is going to have long-lasting ill effects on
>>	the future of the shuttle's commercial use . . . .
>>	The saddest part is that I doubt that NASA was at fault, so they
>>	are getting shafted without any justification.
>>			Will Martin

Agreed.
	Roger Noe			ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe
	AT&T Bell Laboratories