DOCSLIB.ORG

5. Space Insurance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Mémoire présenté devant le Centre d’Etudes Actuarielles pour l’obtention du diplôme du Centre d’Etudes Actuarielles et l’admission à l’Institut des Actuaires le : 27 Janvier 2012 Par : Jean-François GAUCHE Titre : SPACE RISKS ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Confidentialité : NON OUI (Durée : 1an 2 ans) Les signataires s’engagent à respecter la confidentialité indiquée ci-dessus Membre présent du jury de signature Entreprise : l’Institut des Actuaires : Nom : ______________________________ ________________________ Signature : Membres présents du jury du Directeur de mémoire en entreprise : Centre d’Etudes Actuarielles : Thomas BEHAR Nom : ______________________________ Signature : Vincent DAMAS Invité : Gérard CROSET Arnaud COHEN Nom : ______________________________ Signature : Jean-Pierre DIAZ Brigitte DUBUS Paul ESMEIN Autorisation de publication et de Michel FROMENTEAU mise en ligne sur un site de Stéphane MENART diffusion de documents actuariels (après expiration de l’éventuel délai de Christophe IZART confidentialité) Pierre PETAUTON Signature du responsable entreprise Florence PICARD Olivier LOPEZ Secrétariat : Signature du candidat Bibliothèque : 4 rue Chauveau Lagarde 75008 Paris Tél. : 01 44 51 72 72 / Fax : 01 44 51 72 73 MMéémmooiirree AAccttuuaarriiaatt SSppaaccee RRiisskkss Jean-François Gauché Centre d’Etude Décembre 2011 Actuarielle Forewords The present paper is the final work to validate the graduation of actuary studies in the “Centre d’Etude Actuarielle”. The purpose of this work is to analyze the space business environment with an actuary angle in order to find solutions to manage efficiently the underlying space risks. This is an attempt to formalize the business practices with statistics and mathematical models. The main outcome is to calculate the “cost of risk” in the space sector. One of the benefits of this paper is to provide a synthesis of a wide set of data gathered from different origins and analyzed in detail to derive claim and pricing models. The high quality data is inherited from different sources and a strong experience of the space environment. The space insurance market practice is generally relying on an empirical approach and is strongly driven by the offer and demand equilibrium. This paper proposes to analyse this market with a mathematical viewpoint and using an actuarial methodology which is also used by many insurers, and see how both approaches can be conciliated. Finally, the interest of this work is to measure the risk exposure for all the actors of the space business using a common model. The optimization of the risk coverage is analyzed in detail. The main contribution of this work is to propose a panel of solutions to manage those risks and measure their efficiency with mathematical models. I would like to address special thanks to Philippe Cotelle for his expertise in the frame of the space risk management and insurance. He has been challenging the content of this work and has given me the opportunity to implement the methodology developed in this paper on concrete cases. I am also very thankful towards my Astrium colleagues, especially Mrs Jallade, Mr Gajewski and Mr Maurel, who have actively participated in the development of risk models within the company from which were inspired some models presented in this paper. Finally I want also to thank all the teachers of CEA for the high quality of the courses which are thought in the frame of the actuary master. The highly valuable methodologies and tools that I have been taught were a key element in my daily work as risk manager. Among them, I want to address a special thank to Mr Robert and Mr Lopez for their valuable advises on my work and their availability to discuss the problematic of my paper. 3 4 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 11 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................13 2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 13 2.2 SPACE BUSINESS..................................................................................................................... 14 2.3 SPACE RISKS........................................................................................................................... 15 2.4 SPACE INSURANCE................................................................................................................... 19 2.5 CASE STUDY: SPACE ACTORS .................................................................................................. 20 2.6 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 22 3. SPACE ENVIRONMENT...............................................................................................................39 3.1 SPACE BUSINESS..................................................................................................................... 40 3.1.1 Satellite Markets ............................................................................................................ 40 3.1.2 Commercial Market Organization.................................................................................. 42 3.2 SATELLITES ............................................................................................................................. 47 3.2.1 Telecom Satellites ......................................................................................................... 48 3.2.2 Earth Observation Satellites .......................................................................................... 50 3.3 LAUNCHERS............................................................................................................................. 52 3.3.1 Principle ......................................................................................................................... 52 3.3.2 Main Launchers ............................................................................................................. 53 4. SPACE RISKS .............................................................................................................................. 57 4.1 INTRODUCTION: SPACE RISKS OVERVIEW .................................................................................. 58 4.2 LAUNCH RISK MODEL............................................................................................................... 62 4.2.1 Overview........................................................................................................................62 4.2.2 Launch Failure History................................................................................................... 64 4.2.3 Model definition.............................................................................................................. 66 4.3 IN ORBIT TEST RISK MODEL ..................................................................................................... 75 4.3.1 Overview........................................................................................................................75 4.3.2 IOT Failure History......................................................................................................... 78 4.3.3 Model Definition............................................................................................................. 80 4.3.4 IOT Failure Frequency Model........................................................................................ 82 4.3.5 IOT Failure Severity Model............................................................................................ 85 4.4 IN ORBIT LIFE RISK MODEL ...................................................................................................... 90 4.4.1 Overview........................................................................................................................90 4.4.2 IOL Failure History......................................................................................................... 92 4.4.3 Model Definition............................................................................................................. 94 4.4.4 IOL Failure Frequency Model ........................................................................................ 95 4.4.5 IOL Failure Severity Model .......................................................................................... 104 4.5 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 105 5 5. SPACE INSURANCE.................................................................................................................. 107 5.1 MARKET OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 108 5.1.1 Space Insurance Coverage ......................................................................................... 108 5.1.2 Market Metrics ............................................................................................................. 109 5.2 INSURER LOSS MODEL ..........................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058 October 1999 Volume 4, Issue 4

    NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058 October 1999 Volume 4, Issue 4

    A publication of The Orbital Debris Program Office NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058 October 1999 Volume 4, Issue 4. NEWS Marshall Researchers Developing Patch Kit to Mitigate ISS Impact Damage Stephen B. Hall, FD23A procedure and developmental status. external patching for several reasons: time KERMIt Lead Engineer constraints, accessibility, work envelope, Marshall Space Flight Center External Repair Rationale collateral damage and EVA suit compatibility. KERMIt, a Kit for External Repair of The decision was made to develop a kit for A primary risk factor in repairing Module Impacts, is now punctured modules is the being developed at the time constraint involved. Marshall Space Flight Even given the relatively Center in Huntsville, Ala. large volume of air within Its purpose: to seal the Space Station upon punctures in the assembly completion, International Space Station analyses have shown that a caused by collisions with 1-inch-diameter hole can meteoroids or space cause pressure to drop to debris. The kit will enable unacceptable levels in just crewmembers to seal one hour. In that timeframe, punctures from outside the crew must conclude a damaged modules that module has been punctured, have lost atmospheric determine its location, pressure. Delivery of the remove obstructions kit for operational use is restricting access, obtain a scheduled for next year. repair kit and seal the leak. This article -- which This action would be a expands on material challenge even if the crew appearing in the July 1999 was not injured and no issue of “Orbital Debris significant subsystem Quarterly” -- discusses the damage had occurred. rationale for an externally applied patch, Astronaut installing toggle bolt in simulated puncture sample plate on Laboratory requirements influencing Module in Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory.
  • Spacecraft System Failures and Anomalies Attributed to the Natural Space Environment

    Spacecraft System Failures and Anomalies Attributed to the Natural Space Environment

    NASA Reference Publication 1390 - j Spacecraft System Failures and Anomalies Attributed to the Natural Space Environment K.L. Bedingfield, R.D. Leach, and M.B. Alexander, Editor August 1996 NASA Reference Publication 1390 Spacecraft System Failures and Anomalies Attributed to the Natural Space Environment K.L. Bedingfield Universities Space Research Association • Huntsville, Alabama R.D. Leach Computer Sciences Corporation • Huntsville, Alabama M.B. Alexander, Editor Marshall Space Flight Center • MSFC, Alabama National Aeronautics and Space Administration Marshall Space Flight Center ° MSFC, Alabama 35812 August 1996 PREFACE The effects of the natural space environment on spacecraft design, development, and operation are the topic of a series of NASA Reference Publications currently being developed by the Electromagnetics and Aerospace Environments Branch, Systems Analysis and Integration Laboratory, Marshall Space Flight Center. This primer provides an overview of seven major areas of the natural space environment including brief definitions, related programmatic issues, and effects on various spacecraft subsystems. The primary focus is to present more than 100 case histories of spacecraft failures and anomalies documented from 1974 through 1994 attributed to the natural space environment. A better understanding of the natural space environment and its effects will enable spacecraft designers and managers to more effectively minimize program risks and costs, optimize design quality, and achieve mission objectives. .o° 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  • Probability of Collision in the Geostationary Orbit*

    Probability of Collision in the Geostationary Orbit*

    PROBABILITY OF COLLISION IN THE GEOSTATIONARY ORBIT* Raymond A. LeClair and Ramaswamy Sridharan MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 244 Wood Street, Lexington, Massachusetts 02420 USA, Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT/RESUME The initial Geosynchronous Encounter Analysis (GEA) CRDA spanned two years beginning in mid 1997. The advent of geostationary satellite communication During this period, Lincoln Laboratory provided timely 37 years ago, and the resulting continued launch activ- warning of encounters between Telstar 401 and partner ity, has created a population of active and inactive geo- satellites and precision orbits for these objects for use synchronous satellites which will interact, with genu- in avoidance maneuver planning [1]. In all, 32 en- ine possibility of collision, for the foreseeable future. counters between Telstar 401 and a partner satellite As a result of the failure of Telstar 401 three years ago, were supported in 24 months leading to nine avoidance MIT Lincoln Laboratory, in cooperation with commer- maneuvers incorporated into routine station keeping cial partners, began an investigation into this situation. and six dedicated avoidance maneuvers. This process Under the agreement, Lincoln worked to ensure a col- has led to a validated concept of operations for en- lision did not occur between Telstar 401 and partner counter support at Lincoln. satellites and to understand the scope and nature of the Active problem. The results of this cooperative activity and Satellites recent results to carefully characterize the actual prob- SOLIDARIDAD 02 ANIK E1 04-Oct-1999 ability of collision in the geostationary orbit are de- 114 SOLIDARIDAD 1 GOES 07 scribed. ANIK E2 112 MSAT M01 ) ANIK C1 110 GSTAR 04 deg USA 0114 1.
  • The Future of European Commercial Spacecraft Manufacturing

    The Future of European Commercial Spacecraft Manufacturing

    The Future of European Commercial Spacecraft Manufacturing Report 58 May 2016 Cenan Al-Ekabi Short title: ESPI Report 58 ISSN: 2218-0931 (print), 2076-6688 (online) Published in May 2016 Editor and publisher: European Space Policy Institute, ESPI Schwarzenbergplatz 6 • 1030 Vienna • Austria http://www.espi.or.at Tel. +43 1 7181118-0; Fax -99 Rights reserved – No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose with- out permission from ESPI. Citations and extracts to be published by other means are subject to mentioning “Source: ESPI Report 58; May 2016. All rights reserved” and sample transmission to ESPI before publishing. ESPI is not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, product liability or otherwise) whether they may be direct or indirect, special, inciden- tal or consequential, resulting from the information contained in this publication. Design: Panthera.cc ESPI Report 58 2 May 2016 The Future of European Commercial Spacecraft Manufacturing Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Introduction – Research Question 7 1. The Global Satellite Manufacturing Landscape 9 1.1 Introduction 9 1.2 Satellites in Operation 9 1.3 Describing the Satellite Industry Market 10 1.4 The Satellite Industry Value Chain 12 1.4.1 Upstream Revenue by Segment 13 1.4.2 Downstream Revenue by Segment 14 1.5 The Different Actors 15 1.5.1 Government as the Prominent Space Actor 15 1.5.2 Commercial Actors in Space 16 1.6 The Satellite Manufacturing Supply Chain 17 1.6.1 European Consolidation of the Spacecraft Manufacturing Industry 18 1.7 The Satellite Manufacturing Industry 19 1.7.1 The Six Prime Contractors 21 1.7.2 The Smaller Commercial Prime Contractors 23 1.7.3 Asian National Prime Contractors in the Commercial Market 23 1.7.4 European Prime Contractors’ Relative Position in the Global Industry 23 2.

  • Argentina Sienta Las Bases Para La Construcción Del Nuevo Satélite ARSAT-SG1

    › ACCESO EXCLUSIVO SUSCRIPTORES Publicidad Descargas Suscripción Registro Contacto Aviación en español desde 1982 › LATINOAMÉRICA › BRASIL AVIACIÓN ESPACIO AEROPUERTOS MRO / INDUSTRIA FORMACIÓN Y EMPLEO ESPACIO, LATINOAMÉRICA Argentina sienta las bases para la construcción del nuevo satélite ARSAT-SG1 24 julio 2020 12:55 pm a empresa de telecomunicaciones del Estado argentino dene con INVAP los detalles del LL contrato para la construcción y ensayos del nuevo satélite ARSAT-SG1. Que dará banda ancha satelital en sitios rurales con cobertura total en Argentina y parcial en países limítrofes, a precios accesibles. El lanzamiento está previsto para 2023. ARSAT está trabajando en el avance del proyecto del tercer satélite geoestacionario de su ota, el ARSAT Segunda Generación 1, o ARSAT-SG1, anteriormente denominado ARSAT-3. Será un satélite de alto rendimiento (High Throughput Satellite, HTS) para llevar conectividad de banda ancha en todo el territorio de la República Argentina. La compañía se encuentra en el proceso de negociaciones con INVAP para la rma de contrato de construcción y ensayos del ARSAT-SG1. ARSAT-SG1, además de ser el primero de alto rendimiento, será el primer satélite de la empresa en operar una carga útil en banda Ka. El satélite tendrá una capacidad de tráco de datos superior a los 50 Gbps en Argentina. El ingenio de nueva generación tendrá más de 30 haces que cubrirán la totalidad del territorio argentino continental, la isla de Tierra del Fuego y parte de los países limítrofes. Además, con este satélite se podrá ampliar las redes actuales 4G, y las futuras 5G, de los operadores de comunicaciones móviles.
  • Espinsights the Global Space Activity Monitor

    Espinsights the Global Space Activity Monitor

    ESPInsights The Global Space Activity Monitor Issue 2 May–June 2019 CONTENTS FOCUS ..................................................................................................................... 1 European industrial leadership at stake ............................................................................ 1 SPACE POLICY AND PROGRAMMES .................................................................................... 2 EUROPE ................................................................................................................. 2 9th EU-ESA Space Council .......................................................................................... 2 Europe’s Martian ambitions take shape ......................................................................... 2 ESA’s advancements on Planetary Defence Systems ........................................................... 2 ESA prepares for rescuing Humans on Moon .................................................................... 3 ESA’s private partnerships ......................................................................................... 3 ESA’s international cooperation with Japan .................................................................... 3 New EU Parliament, new EU European Space Policy? ......................................................... 3 France reflects on its competitiveness and defence posture in space ...................................... 3 Germany joins consortium to support a European reusable rocket.........................................
  • Loral Space & Communications

    Loral Space & Communications

    LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD FORM 10-K (Annual Report) Filed 3/31/1997 For Period Ending 12/31/1996 Address 600 THIRD AVE C/O LORAL SPACECOM CORP NEW YORK, New York 10016 Telephone 212-697-1105 CIK 0001006269 Industry Electronic Instr. & Controls Sector Technology Fiscal Year 12/31 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM APRIL 1, 1996 TO DECEMBER 31, 1996 Commission file number 1-14180 LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD. 600 Third Avenue New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 697-1105 Jurisdiction of incorporation: Bermuda IRS identification number: 13-3867424 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: NAME OF EACH EXCHANGE TITLE OF EACH CLASS ON WHICH REGISTERED - ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------ Common Stock, $.01 par value...................................... New York Stock Exchange The registrant has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months or such shorter period as the registrant was required to file such reports and has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is contained in the registrant's definitive proxy statement incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K. At February 28, 1997, 191,092,308 common shares were outstanding, and the aggregate market value of such shares (based upon the closing price on the New York Stock Exchange) held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $3 billion.
  • CABLE SATELLITES : the NEXT GENERATION Issues Facing Cable Operators and Programmers

    CABLE SATELLITES : the NEXT GENERATION Issues Facing Cable Operators and Programmers

    CABLE SATELLITES : THE NEXT GENERATION Issues Facing Cable Operators and Programmers Robert Zitter Home Box Office, Inc. A development that will impact the ABSTRACT cable industry is the FCC mandate to phase-in a uniform 2-degree spacing The deployment of next-generation between U.S. domestic satellites. The satellites in compliance with the FCC's intent of the plan is to alleviate uniform 2-degree spacing plan, together overcrowding in the U.S. orbital arc. It with the movement of cable times the deployment of next generation programming, will occur during the next satellites with improvements in ground two years. A discussion of the transition station receiving characteristics in order scenario, the technical differences in the to control the ensuing increase in new satellites, and ground station adjacent satellite interference. requirements reveals that Cable TV and SMATV facilities will require This paper discusses the satellite reconfiguration and in some cases and orbital changes that are expected to replacement may be necessary. The occur during the next two years, and satellite movement and programming presents some critical issues and transfers in the early nineties compel the challenges facing satellite programmers cable industry to examine the future and cable operators . performance of existing facilities. o Time of Replacements In the early days, 4-degrees of separation within the two segments o Introduction assigned to U.S. domestic communication satellites -- 70 to I 04 C-Band satellites have become a degrees and 117 to 143 degrees West reliable means of delivery for cable Longitude (oWL) -- consisting of 15 television programs and have played an satellite slots were found adequate.
  • Faculty Profile Directory

    Faculty Profile Directory

    NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California AD-A237 028 0 ^ELECTEDTIC UN 18 1991i k TEESIS IMPACT OF ION PROPULSION ON PERFORMANCE, DESIGN, TESTING AND OPERATION OF A GEOSYNCHRONOUS SPACECRAFT by Spotrizano Descanzo Lugtu June 1990 Thesis Advisor: Brij N. Agrawal Co-Advisor Oscar Biblarz Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 91-02174 916 11111 1 1111lI0I ll! I! 91 ( 14 040 - Unclassified Security Classification of this page REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE I1a Report Security Classification Unclassified i b Restrictive Markings 2a Security Classification Authority 3 Distribution Availability of Report 2b Declassification/Downgrading Schedule Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 4 Performing Organization Report Number(s) 5 Monitoring Organization Report Number(s) 6a Name of Performing Organization 6b Office Symbol 7a Name of Monitoring Organization Naval Postgraduate School I(If Applicable) 39 Naval Postgraduate School 6c Address (city, state, and ZIP code) 7b Address (city, state, and ZIP code) Monterey, CA 93943-5000 Monterey, CA 93943-5000 8a Name of Funding/Sponsoring Organization j 8b Office Symbol 9 Procurement Instrument Identification Number I(If Applicable) 8c Address (city, state, and ZIP code) 10 Source of Funding Numbers Program Elenet Number I Projt No I Task No Wok Unit Accemsion No 11 Title (Include Security Classification) IMPACT OF ION PROPULSION ON PERFORMANCE, DESIGN, TESTING AND OPERATION OF A GEOSYNCHRONOUS SATELLITE 12 Personal Author(s) Spotrizano D. Lugtu 13a Type of Report 13b Time Covered 14 Date of Report (year, month,day) I 15 Page Count Master's Thesis From To IJune 1990 I 11 16 Supplementary Notation The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the De )artment of Defense or the U.S.
  • Commercial Spacecraft Mission Model Update

    Commercial Spacecraft Mission Model Update

    Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) Report of the COMSTAC Technology & Innovation Working Group Commercial Spacecraft Mission Model Update May 1998 Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation Federal Aviation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation M5528/98ml Printed for DOT/FAA/AST by Rocketdyne Propulsion & Power, Boeing North American, Inc. Report of the COMSTAC Technology & Innovation Working Group COMMERCIAL SPACECRAFT MISSION MODEL UPDATE May 1998 Paul Fuller, Chairman Technology & Innovation Working Group Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) Associative Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation Federal Aviation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMERCIAL MISSION MODEL UPDATE........................................................................ 1 1. Introduction................................................................................................................ 1 2. 1998 Mission Model Update Methodology.................................................................. 1 3. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 2 4. Recommendations....................................................................................................... 3 5. References .................................................................................................................. 3 APPENDIX A – 1998 DISCUSSION AND RESULTS........................................................
  • <> CRONOLOGIA DE LOS SATÉLITES ARTIFICIALES DE LA

    <> CRONOLOGIA DE LOS SATÉLITES ARTIFICIALES DE LA

    1 SATELITES ARTIFICIALES. Capítulo 5º Subcap. 10 <> CRONOLOGIA DE LOS SATÉLITES ARTIFICIALES DE LA TIERRA. Esta es una relación cronológica de todos los lanzamientos de satélites artificiales de nuestro planeta, con independencia de su éxito o fracaso, tanto en el disparo como en órbita. Significa pues que muchos de ellos no han alcanzado el espacio y fueron destruidos. Se señala en primer lugar (a la izquierda) su nombre, seguido de la fecha del lanzamiento, el país al que pertenece el satélite (que puede ser otro distinto al que lo lanza) y el tipo de satélite; este último aspecto podría no corresponderse en exactitud dado que algunos son de finalidad múltiple. En los lanzamientos múltiples, cada satélite figura separado (salvo en los casos de fracaso, en que no llegan a separarse) pero naturalmente en la misma fecha y juntos. NO ESTÁN incluidos los llevados en vuelos tripulados, si bien se citan en el programa de satélites correspondiente y en el capítulo de “Cronología general de lanzamientos”. .SATÉLITE Fecha País Tipo SPUTNIK F1 15.05.1957 URSS Experimental o tecnológico SPUTNIK F2 21.08.1957 URSS Experimental o tecnológico SPUTNIK 01 04.10.1957 URSS Experimental o tecnológico SPUTNIK 02 03.11.1957 URSS Científico VANGUARD-1A 06.12.1957 USA Experimental o tecnológico EXPLORER 01 31.01.1958 USA Científico VANGUARD-1B 05.02.1958 USA Experimental o tecnológico EXPLORER 02 05.03.1958 USA Científico VANGUARD-1 17.03.1958 USA Experimental o tecnológico EXPLORER 03 26.03.1958 USA Científico SPUTNIK D1 27.04.1958 URSS Geodésico VANGUARD-2A
  • Deep Space Network Ission Suppo

    Deep Space Network Ission Suppo

    870-14, Rev. AF Deep Space Network ission Suppo Jet Propulsion Laboratory California institute of Technology JPL 0-0787,Rev. AF 870-14, Rev. AF October 1991 Deep Space Network ission Support Re uirements Reviewed by: L.M. McKinley TDA Mission Support Off ice Approved by: R.J. Amorose Manager, TDA Mission Support Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology JPL 0-0787, Rev. AF 870.14. Rev . AF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................ 1-1 A . PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................. 1-1 B . REVISION AND CONTROL .............................................. 1-1 C . ORGANIZATION OF DOCUMENT 870-14 ................................... 1-1 D . ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................... 1-1 ASTRO-D ................................................................. 2-1 BROADCASTING SATELLITE-3A AND -3B (BS-3A AND -3B) ....................... 3-1 CRAF/CASSINI (c/c)...................................................... 4-1 COSMIC BACKGROUND EXPLORER (COBE)....................................... 5-1 DYNAMICS EXPLORER-1 (DE-1).............................................. 6-1 EARTH RADIATION BUDGET SATELLITE (ERBS)................................. 7-1 ENGINEERING TEST SATELLITE-VI (ETS-VI).................................. 8-1 EUROPEAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE I1 (EUTELSAT 11) .................. 9-1 EXTREME ULTRAVIOLET EXPLORER (EWE)..................................... 10-1 FRENCH DIRECT TV BROADCAST SATELLITE (TDF-1 AND -2) ....................