WMartin%Office-3@sri-unix.UUCP (02/10/84)
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
rjnoe@ihlts.UUCP (Roger Noe @ N41:48.5, W88:07.2) (02/14/84)
>> 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