DOCSLIB.ORG

Program Assessment Report Statement of Findings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Program Assessment Report Statement of Findings DOE/ER-0085 Dist. Categories UC-20e, 34b, 41,,63, 93, 97, 97a, 97d Program Assessment Report Statement of Findings Satellite Power Systems Concept Development and Evaluation Program November 1980 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Research Solar Power Satellite Project Division Washington, D.C. 20545 DOE/NASA SATELLITE POWER SYSTEM Concept Development and Evaluation Program CONTENTS • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • V1 • • • SCOPE • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • Vl 11 1 INTRODUCTION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 1.1 Potential of Solar Energy in Space ••••••••.. • • • • • • • • • • 1 1.2 General SPS Concept • . • • • . • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 1.3 Concept Potential . • . • . • . • . • . • • • • • • • • • • 1 1.4 CDEP Objectives and Questions .••.••••••.... • • • • • • • • 1 2 SPS SYSTEM CONCEPTS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 2.1 SPS Reference System. • . • . • • • • • • . " . • • • • • • • • 3 2.2 SPS Alternative System Concepts . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 3 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS •... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8 3.1 Introduction. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8 3.2 Environmental Assessment ... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 9 3.2.1 Background . •.. • • • • • • • • 9 3.2.2 Microwave Effects on Health and Ecosystems . • • • • • • • • • • • 9 3.2.3 Space Worker Health and Safety • . • . • • • • • • • • • • • 13 3.2.4 Atmospheric, Effects. • • . • . • . • . • • • • • • • • 18 3.2.5 Geostationary Orbit Allocation . • . • . • • • • • • • • 24 3.2.6 Effects on Astronomy . • . • . • . • . • • • • • • • • • • 24 3.3 Societal Assessment . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 28 3.3.1 Background . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 29 3.3.2 Resources. • • • • • • • • . " . • • 29 3.3.3 Institutional Issues . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 31 3.3.4 International Issues . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 31 3.3.5 Public Concerns ••... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 33 3.3.6 Summary ..... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 34 3.4 Comparative Assessment. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 34 3 .4 .1 Background . • • . • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 34 3.4.2 Cost and Performance . • • • . " • • • • • • • • • • • 36 3.4.3 Environmental Welfare. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 38 3.4.4 Resources ••..•.•.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 39 3.4.5 Institutional Considerations • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 39 3.4.6 Heal th and Safety. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 39 3.4.7 Summary Findings • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 40 3.5 Systems Definition. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 41 3.5.1 Bae kground . 41 3.5.2 Solar Energy Conversion and On-Board Power Distribution. • . • 42 3.5.3 Power Transmission and Reception • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • . 44 3.5.4 Space Structures, Controls and Materials ...•.•.•.•••. 46 3.5.5 Construction, Operation, and Maintenance ........•..•. 48 3.5.6 Space Transportation . .. 50 • • • 111 CONTENTS (Cont'd) APPENDIX A: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ..•... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 53 APPENDIX B: CDEP ASSESSMENT PROCESS .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 56 APPENDIX C: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SPS REFERENCE SYSTEM. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 61 APPENDIX D: REFERENCES . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 64 APPENDIX E: ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 67 FIGURES• 2.1 Satellite Power System Concept . • . • . • . • . • 3 2.2 Some Alternative Systems Concepts Employing Microwave Power Transmission . 5 2.3 Some Alternative Systems Concepts Employing Multiple Microwave Antennae. • . 6 2.4 Example of Reduction in Rectenna Size with Increased Power Density • • • • • 7 3.1 SPS Microwave Power Density Characteristics at a Reference System Rec tenna Site. • • • • • • • • 10 3.2 Factors Pertinent to Space Worker Health and Safety • • • • • • • • • • • • 14 3.3 Regions of the Atmosphere and Potential SPS Effects • • • • • • • • • • • • 20 3.4 Examples of SPS Microwave Transmission Effects on the Ionosphere and Telecommunication Systems .......•............. • • • • • 21 3.5 Levelized Life-Cycle Cost of Electricity . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 37 3.6 Distribution of Front-End Costs ••. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 38 3.7 Quantified Health Effects ... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 40 B. l SPS Functional Organization. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . " 56 B.2 SPS Participatory Technology Process . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 58 B.3 CDEP Assessment Information Organization . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 59 C.l SPS Reference System • • . • . • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 61 TABLES 3.1 Effects o_f Microwave Exposure on Health and Ecosystems • • • • • • • • • • 12 3.2 Effects on Space Workers • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18 3.3 Atmospheric Effects. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 25 3.4 Geostationary Orbit Allocation . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 26 3.5 Effects on Astronomy . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 29 3.6 Societal Assessment .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 35 1V• TABLES (Cont'd) 3.7 Capital Cost Ranges .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 36 3.8 Water Requirements for Alternative Energy Technologies • . • • • • • • • • 39 3.9 Unquantified Health Effects •.•.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 41 3 .10 Solar Energy Conversion and On-Board Power Distribution •• • • • • • • • • 44 3.11 Power Transmission and Reception • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 47 3.12 Space Structures, Controls, and Materials . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 49 ' 3.13 Construction, Operation, and Maintenance. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 51 3.14 Space Transportation. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 52 B.l Key Organizations • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 57 B.2 CDEP Budget· • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 59 C.l Reference System Characteristics •. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 62 v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PREFACE examined more thoroughly by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration This report states what is known, (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), uncertain, and unknown about the Solar academia, and industry. In 1976, on the Power Satellite ( SPS), concept-­ basis that the SPS is an energy option, collecting solar energy in space and the Office of Management and Budget delivering the energy to Earth for the (OMB) assigned the responsibility for production of baseload electricity. the evaluation of the SPS to the Energy Research and Development Administration This report fulfills the objective of (ERDA), the predecessor of DOE. In the Satellite Power System Concept 1977, DOE and NASA started a three-year Development and Evaluation Program Concept Development and Evaluation (CDEP) "to develop, by the end of 1980, Program. an initial understanding of the techni­ cal feasibility, the economic practical­ The CDEP was implemented because the ity, and the social and environmental SPS concept appeared to have the fol­ acceptabi 1 i ty of the SPS concept." lowing attributes that would be de­ sirable in any future energy option: This report discusses the important technical, environmental, and cost • The SPS could provide contin­ goal questions that must be answered uous baseload electricity. prior to making a commitment to the SPS c oncept. Although significant • The SPS would use an inexhaustible technological, environmental and econo­ energy source--the Sun. mic questions remain to be answered, the • The SPS is international in scope, preliminary investigations undertaken in c apable of providing energy for the CDEP do provide a basis for a policy domestic and world markets. decision on further commitment. The SPS Reference System was designed This report also suggests areas of to serve• as a mechanism• to assess the research and experimentation required to environmental and social aspects of the acquire the knowledge by which a series concept and to provide a basis for of informed, time-phased decisions may comparison with alternative concepts. be made concerning the possibility of Technologically, it does not represent the SPS concept playing a major role in an optimal or preferred system. System the United States' energy future. definition studies of plausible alterna­ tives to the SPS Reference System would be required to arrive at a preferred DISCUSSION system. Such activity could, if pur­ sued, be linked to current DOE and NASA Systems Definition generic research in fields of energy c onvers 1on,• spac e transportation,• For the past 20 years, photovoltaic structures and materials, and space energy conversion systems in space have construction. Areas of research speci­ powered communication, earth resource, fic to an SPS preferred system would and meteorological satellites, planetary include microwave power generation, probes and manned spacecraft. During transmi ssion, control and reception; this period, the remote transmission of space-to-earth laser power transmission power by means of microwaves was demon­ and reception; and research associated strated. In 1968, . the two ideas were with large-size
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, D.C
    Table of Contents As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2007 Registration No. 333-140224 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 AMENDMENT NO.1 TO FORM S-4 REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 Intelsat (Bermuda), Ltd. (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter) Bermuda 4899 98-0348066 (State or Other Jurisdiction of (Primary Standard Industrial (I.R.S. Employer Incorporation or Organization) Classification Code Number) Identification Number) Wellesley House North, 2nd Floor, 90 Pitts Bay Road, Pembroke HM 08, Bermuda (441) 294-1650 (Address, Including Zip Code, and Telephone Number, Including Area Code, of Registrant’s Principal Executive Offices) Intelsat, Ltd. (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter) Bermuda 4899 98-0346003 (State or Other Jurisdiction of (Primary Standard Industrial (I.R.S. Employer Incorporation or Organization) Classification Code Number) Identification Number) Wellesley House North, 2nd Floor, 90 Pitts Bay Road, Pembroke HM 08, Bermuda (441) 294-1650 (Address, Including Zip Code, and Telephone Number, Including Area Code, of Registrant’s Principal Executive Offices) Intelsat Subsidiary Holding Company, Ltd. (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter) Bermuda 4899 98-0446524 (State or Other Jurisdiction of (Primary Standard Industrial (I.R.S. Employer Incorporation or Organization) Classification Code Number) Identification Number) Wellesley House North, 2nd Floor, 90 Pitts Bay Road, Pembroke HM 08, Bermuda (441) 294-1650 (Address, Including Zip Code, and Telephone Number, Including Area Code, of Registrant’s Principal Executive Offices) Intelsat Holdings LLC (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter) Delaware 4899 98-0348066 (State or Other Jurisdiction of (Primary Standard Industrial (I.R.S.
    [Show full text]
  • INTELSAT: Greater Price Flexibility to Preserve the System Thomas B
    American University International Law Review Volume 3 | Issue 2 Article 3 1988 INTELSAT: Greater Price Flexibility to Preserve the System Thomas B. Bacon Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Bacon, Thomas B. "INTELSAT: Greater Price Flexibility to Preserve the System." American University International Law Review 3, no. 2 (1988): 383-417. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES AND COMMENTS INTELSAT: GREATER PRICE FLEXIBILITY TO PRESERVE THE SYSTEM Thomas B. Bacon* INTRODUCTION Telecommunications is probably the most international of industries.' An international telecommunications system provides the vehicle for in- creased international global communication, understanding, and coop- eration.2 Telecommunications now plays such an integral role in rela- tionships among nations that alterations in the telecommunications structure result in world-wide economic changes.3 Modern telecommu- nication systems provide for the order, shipment, and delivery of goods in international trade; facilitate the international financial flows neces- sary for investment and management of foreign assets; and allow the efficient production of goods manufactured and assembled in more than one country.4 The United States depends heavily on a working interna- * J.D. Candidate, 1989, Washington College of Law, The American University.
    [Show full text]
  • Nos. 13-1231 & 13-1232 Washington, D.C. 20530
    USCA Case #13-1231 Document #1472126 Filed: 12/23/2013 Page 1 of 98 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NOS. 13-1231 & 13-1232 SPECTRUM FIVE LLC, APPELLANT, V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, APPELLEE. SPECTRUM FIVE LLC, PETITIONER, V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS. ON APPEAL FROM AND PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WILLIAM J. BAER JONATHAN B. SALLET ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL ROBERT B. NICHOLSON JACOB M. LEWIS ROBERT J. WIGGERS ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL ATTORNEYS MATTHEW J. DUNNE UNITED STATES COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 (202) 418-1740 USCA Case #13-1231 Document #1472126 Filed: 12/23/2013 Page 2 of 98 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), Appellee/Respondent the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and Respondent the United States certify as follows: 1. Parties. The parties appearing before the FCC were DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC; EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation; the Government of Bermuda; Radiocommunications Agency Netherlands; SES S.A.; and Spectrum Five LLC. The parties appearing before this Court are Appellant/Petitioner Spectrum Five LLC; Appelle/Respondent the FCC; Respondent the United States in No. 13-1232 only; and Intervenor EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation. 2. Ruling under review. The ruling under review is Memorandum Opinion and Order, EchoStar Satellite Operating Company; Application for Special Temporary Authority Relating to Moving the EchoStar 6 Satellite from the 77° W.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Name NORAD ID Int'l Code Launch Date Period [Minutes] Longitude LES 9 MARISAT 2 ESIAFI 1 (COMSTAR 4) SATCOM C5 TDRS 1 NATO 3D AR
    Name NORAD ID Int'l Code Launch date Period [minutes] Longitude LES 9 8747 1976-023B Mar 15, 1976 1436.1 105.8° W MARISAT 2 9478 1976-101A Oct 14, 1976 1475.5 10.8° E ESIAFI 1 (COMSTAR 4) 12309 1981-018A Feb 21, 1981 1436.3 75.2° E SATCOM C5 13631 1982-105A Oct 28, 1982 1436.1 104.7° W TDRS 1 13969 1983-026B Apr 4, 1983 1436 49.3° W NATO 3D 15391 1984-115A Nov 14, 1984 1516.6 34.6° E ARABSAT 1A 15560 1985-015A Feb 8, 1985 1433.9 169.9° W NAHUEL I1 (ANIK C1) 15642 1985-028B Apr 12, 1985 1444.9 18.6° E GSTAR 1 15677 1985-035A May 8, 1985 1436.1 105.3° W INTELSAT 511 15873 1985-055A Jun 30, 1985 1438.8 75.3° E GOES 7 17561 1987-022A Feb 26, 1987 1435.7 176.4° W OPTUS A3 (AUSSAT 3) 18350 1987-078A Sep 16, 1987 1455.9 109.5° W GSTAR 3 19483 1988-081A Sep 8, 1988 1436.1 104.8° W TDRS 3 19548 1988-091B Sep 29, 1988 1424.4 84.7° E ASTRA 1A 19688 1988-109B Dec 11, 1988 1464.4 168.5° E TDRS 4 19883 1989-021B Mar 13, 1989 1436.1 45.3° W INTELSAT 602 20315 1989-087A Oct 27, 1989 1436.1 177.9° E LEASAT 5 20410 1990-002B Jan 9, 1990 1436.1 100.3° E INTELSAT 603 20523 1990-021A Mar 14, 1990 1436.1 19.8° W ASIASAT 1 20558 1990-030A Apr 7, 1990 1450.9 94.4° E INSAT 1D 20643 1990-051A Jun 12, 1990 1435.9 76.9° E INTELSAT 604 20667 1990-056A Jun 23, 1990 1462.9 164.4° E COSMOS 2085 20693 1990-061A Jul 18, 1990 1436.2 76.4° E EUTELSAT 2-F1 20777 1990-079B Aug 30, 1990 1449.5 30.6° E SKYNET 4C 20776 1990-079A Aug 30, 1990 1436.1 13.6° E GALAXY 6 20873 1990-091B Oct 12, 1990 1443.3 115.5° W SBS 6 20872 1990-091A Oct 12, 1990 1454.6 27.4° W INMARSAT 2-F1 20918
    [Show full text]
  • Military Use of Commercial Communication Satellites: a New Look at the Outer Space Treaty and Peaceful Purposes Richard A
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 60 | Issue 1 Article 4 1994 Military Use of Commercial Communication Satellites: A New Look at the Outer Space Treaty and Peaceful Purposes Richard A. Morgan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Richard A. Morgan, Military Use of Commercial Communication Satellites: A New Look at the Outer Space Treaty and Peaceful Purposes, 60 J. Air L. & Com. 237 (1994) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol60/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. MILITARY USE OF COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATION SATELLITES: A NEW LOOK AT THE OUTER SPACE TREATY AND "PEACEFUL PURPOSES" RICHARD A. MORGAN* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................... 239 PART I. MILITARY SATELLITE USAGE ............. 243 A. MILITARY SATELLITE USAGE BY ILLUSTRATIVE COUNTRIES ................................. 244 1. Defense Policies .......................... 244 2. Country-by-Country Usage ................ 246 3. United States Military Satellites ........... 248 4. Former Soviet Union's Military Satellites... 251 B. COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE SERVICES .................................... 252 1. INTELSAT Services ...................... 252 2. INMARSAT Services ..................... 256 3. Regional Commercial Satellite Services ..... 260 4. Other Commercial Satellite Services ........ 261 C. MILITARY SATELLITE USE DURING REGIONAL CONFLICTS .................................. 265 D. DoD's DRIVE TowARD COMMERCIAL SATELLITE USAGE ........................... 270 PART II. INMARSAT, INTELSAT & COMSAT ....... 276 * Legal advisor to the United States National Communications System (NCS) and Associate Regulatory Counsel (Telecommunications) to the U.S. Defense Depart- ment; LL.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Satellite TV Conferencing Setup PROCEDURE
    PROCEDURE Satellite TV Conferencing Setup PRIMARY Satellite TV Connections KNOWLEDGE AREA Prerequisites: The operator should know the following information before beginning: Satellite channel of the conference broadcast Phone number of conference contact in case of technical difficulties before or during the broadcast Overview: This document is for use in preparing for a satellite TV system video conference to be viewed at the college or for any other authorized and approved use of the system. The document may also be used in cases were the satellite receiver connections have become loose or inadvertently disconnected and need to be reconnected. There is a hardcopy “DSR 922 Operator’s Guide” located in the room with the satellite receiver box that provides additional detailed information about the box. Also, check the General Instrument web site for any additional information that may be posted there. Repair Contact: Satellite dish repair person: Rick Faulkner 67 Salem Street Wilmington, MA 01887 (413) 246-9789 (cell) (978) 694-1549 (home) Company: NWS 1-800-562-7081 PROCEDURE: The satellite receiver is located in room 110 (first floor) of the North Academic Building on the Bedford campus. The receiver is usually on a large steel cabinet on a shelf below the television that is being used with the receiver. Version: 1.0 Release Date: May 2004 Connecting the Satellite Receiver Box Figure 1 There are over a dozen connections that must be properly made to the back of the DSR 922 receiver. This section of the document describes those connections. Beginning on the far-right side and moving from right to left, the following cables and cords should be securely connected to the back of the receiver.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Communications Commission DA 01-513 Before
    Federal Communications Commission DA 01-513 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) New Skies Satellites N.V. ) File No. SAT-PDR-19991227-00130 ) Petition for Declaratory Ruling ) ORDER Adopted: March 27, 2001 Released: March 29, 2001 By the Chief, Satellite and Radiocommunication Division, International Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, we add four satellites currently operated by New Skies Satellites, N.V. (New Skies) to the "Permitted Space Station List."1 The Permitted Space Station List denotes all satellites with which U.S. earth stations with "routinely" authorized technical parameters are permitted to communicate without additional Commission action, provided that those communications fall within the same technical parameters and conditions established in the earth stations' licenses. As a result of this action, "routine" earth stations will be able to communicate with any or all of these four New Skies satellites. This should stimulate competition in the United States, provide consumers more alternatives in choosing communications providers and services, reduce prices, and facilitate technological innovation. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission's DISCO II Order adopted a framework under which the Commission would consider requests for non-U.S. satellite systems to serve the United States.2 To implement this framework, the Commission, among other things, established a procedure by which a service provider in the United States could request immediate access to a foreign in-orbit satellite that would serve the U.S. market.3 In the DISCO II First Reconsideration Order, the Commission streamlined this process by doing two things. First, it allowed the operators of in-orbit non-U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Satellite Technology
    SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY PRINCIPLES AND APPLICATIONS Second Edition Anil K. Maini Varsha Agrawal Both of Laser Science and Technology Centre, Defence Research and Development Organization, Ministry of Defence, India This edition first published 2011 ©2011 John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Registered office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com. The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes to the Database for May 1, 2021 Release This Version of the Database Includes Launches Through April 30, 2021
    Changes to the Database for May 1, 2021 Release This version of the Database includes launches through April 30, 2021. There are currently 4,084 active satellites in the database. The changes to this version of the database include: • The addition of 836 satellites • The deletion of 124 satellites • The addition of and corrections to some satellite data Satellites Deleted from Database for May 1, 2021 Release Quetzal-1 – 1998-057RK ChubuSat 1 – 2014-070C Lacrosse/Onyx 3 (USA 133) – 1997-064A TSUBAME – 2014-070E Diwata-1 – 1998-067HT GRIFEX – 2015-003D HaloSat – 1998-067NX Tianwang 1C – 2015-051B UiTMSAT-1 – 1998-067PD Fox-1A – 2015-058D Maya-1 -- 1998-067PE ChubuSat 2 – 2016-012B Tanyusha No. 3 – 1998-067PJ ChubuSat 3 – 2016-012C Tanyusha No. 4 – 1998-067PK AIST-2D – 2016-026B Catsat-2 -- 1998-067PV ÑuSat-1 – 2016-033B Delphini – 1998-067PW ÑuSat-2 – 2016-033C Catsat-1 – 1998-067PZ Dove 2p-6 – 2016-040H IOD-1 GEMS – 1998-067QK Dove 2p-10 – 2016-040P SWIATOWID – 1998-067QM Dove 2p-12 – 2016-040R NARSSCUBE-1 – 1998-067QX Beesat-4 – 2016-040W TechEdSat-10 – 1998-067RQ Dove 3p-51 – 2017-008E Radsat-U – 1998-067RF Dove 3p-79 – 2017-008AN ABS-7 – 1999-046A Dove 3p-86 – 2017-008AP Nimiq-2 – 2002-062A Dove 3p-35 – 2017-008AT DirecTV-7S – 2004-016A Dove 3p-68 – 2017-008BH Apstar-6 – 2005-012A Dove 3p-14 – 2017-008BS Sinah-1 – 2005-043D Dove 3p-20 – 2017-008C MTSAT-2 – 2006-004A Dove 3p-77 – 2017-008CF INSAT-4CR – 2007-037A Dove 3p-47 – 2017-008CN Yubileiny – 2008-025A Dove 3p-81 – 2017-008CZ AIST-2 – 2013-015D Dove 3p-87 – 2017-008DA Yaogan-18
    [Show full text]
  • FCC-06-85A1.Pdf
    Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-85 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Constellation, LLC, Carlyle PanAmSat I, LLC, ) Carlyle PanAmSat II, LLC, PEP PAS, LLC, and ) IB Docket No. 05-290 PEOP PAS, LLC, Transferors ) ) and ) ) Intelsat Holdings, Ltd., Transferee, ) ) Consolidated Application for Authority to ) Transfer Control of PanAmSat Licensee Corp. and ) PanAmSat H-2 Licensee Corp. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: June 19, 2006 Released: June 19, 2006 By the Commission: Commissioners Copps and Adelstein concurring and issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BACKGROUND 3 A. Description of the Applicants 3 1. PanAmSat 3 2. Intelsat 6 B. Description of the Transaction 8 C. Application and Review Process 14 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND PUBLIC INTEREST FRAMEWORK 17 IV. QUALIFICATIONS OF APPLICANTS 22 V. PUBLIC INTEREST ANALYSIS 24 A. Competitive Effects 25 1. FSS Video Services 35 2. FSS Network Services 41 3. FSS Government Services 43 4. Transaction-Specific Benefits 44 B. Foreign Ownership 47 C. National Security, Law Enforcement, Foreign Policy and Trade Policy Concerns 50 D. Other Issues 53 1. ITSO Request for Conditions 53 2. Microcom Request for Conditions 69 3. Pending Applications 72 VI. CONCLUSION 74 VII.ORDERING CLAUSES 76 Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-85 Appendix A – List of Licenses Appendix B – Post-Transaction Corporate Structure Appendix C – Executive Branch Petition and Intelsat/PanAmSat Commitment Letter I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, we consider and grant a series of applications filed by Constellation, LLC (“Constellation”), Carlyle PanAmSat I, LLC (“Carlyle PanAmSat I”), Carlyle PanAmSat II, LLC (“Carlyle PanAmSat II”), PEP PAS, LLC (“PEP PAS”), and PEOP PAS, LLC (“PEOP PAS” and collectively with Constellation, Carlyle PanAmSat I, Carlyle PanAmSat II, and PEP PAS, the “Transferors”), Intelsat Holdings, Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Communications Satellites DRIFTING
    Commercial Communications Satellites DRIFTING: BS-3N; BSAT-1A, -1B (I), -2A, -2C, -3A; N-SAT-110 LMI AP 2 (Gorizont 30) Cakrawarta 1, Telkom 1, NSS-11, Protostar 2 Geosynchronous Orbit 93.5°E 100.0°E 95.0°E 92.0°E 91.5°E 100.5°E 98.5°E 105.0°E 105.5°E Intelsat 704 108.0°E 109.0°E 110.5°E110.0°E 88.0°E 87.5°E 85.0°E 113.0°E 83.0°E 80.0°E 78.5°E Thuraya 3 (I), Protostar 1 76.5°E 116.0°E 75.0°E 74.0°E 72.0°E 119.5°E118.0°E 70.5°E 120.0°E 68.5°E 66.0°E 122.0°E 64.5°E 123.0°E Sinosat-1/Intelsat APR-2 64.0°E 124.0°E MEASAT 3, 3A 62.0°E Palapa C2, Koreasat 5 Insat 3A, 4B 60.0°E Inmarsat II F-4 (I) Leasat F-5 (I) Chinasat-9 (Comstar D4) 57.0°E 128.0°E Asiasat 3S Asiasat 2 56.0°E 130.0°E Asiastar 1 55.0°E NSS-6 53.0°E 132.0°E Koreasat 2 (I), 3 51.0°E 134.0°E ST-1 Chinastar-1 Intelsat 709 Insat 2E/Int APR-1; Insat 3B, 4A Esiafi 1 (I) 136.0°E Thaicom 2, 5 Apstar 2R 47.5°E ABS-1 ThaicomThaicom 1ATelkom 4 2 Insat 3C,Intelsat-4 4CR 138.0°E W5 46.0°E Inelsat-7, -10 142.0°E Intelsat 702 45.0°E Asiasat 4 Inmarsat III F-1 43.5°E 143.5°E Garuda 1 Intelsat 906 (BONUM) 42.0°E JCSat 4A Intelsat 902 144.0°E JCSat 5A, Vinasat 1 Intelsat 904 (Express AM-22) 40.0°E NSS-703 39.0°E Apstar MOST-1 146.0°E JCSat 3A Insat 3E, Intelsat 706 38.0°E°E 148.0°E SESAT 2 (Measat 1) 36.0 Apstar 5/Telstar 18 1A (I) Galaxy 26 (Europe*Star 1) 33.0°E 150.0°E Apstar 6 31.5°E Superbird C, C2; MBSAT 1 N-Star C Intelsat 601 (I) (Hot Bird 2A) 152.0°E Africasat 1 30.5°E InmarsatApstar IV F1 1 (I) 90˚E Intelsat-12 (I) 154.0°E Thuraya 2 (I) 29.0°E MABUHAY/Agila 2 Turksat-2A (I), -3A(Palapa
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-112
    Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-112 FCC REPORT TO CONGRESS AS REQUIRED BY THE ORBIT ACT ELEVENTH REPORT Adopted: June 14, 2010 Released: June 15, 2010 By the Commission: Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-112 FCC REPORT TO CONGRESS AS REQUIRED BY THE ORBIT ACT ELEVENTH REPORT This report is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications Act (the “ORBIT Act”)1 which has an objective of ensuring that INTELSAT and Inmarsat are privatized in a pro- competitive manner. To this end, the Act requires the submission of annual reports to Congress as noted below. Section 646 states: (a) ANNUAL REPORTS - The President and the Commission shall report to the Committees on Commerce and International Relations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and Foreign Relations of the Senate within 90 calendar days of the enactment of this title, and not less than annually thereafter, on the progress made to achieve the objectives and carry out the purposes and provisions of this title. Such reports shall be made available immediately to the public. (b) CONTENTS OF REPORTS - The reports submitted pursuant to subsection (a) shall include the following: (1) Progress with respect to each objective since the most recent preceding report. (2) Views of the Parties with respect to privatization. (3) Views of the industry and consumers on privatization. (4) Impact privatization has had on United States industry, United States jobs, and United States industry’s access to the global marketplace.2 I. Progress as to Objectives and Purposes The purpose of the ORBIT Act is “to promote a fully competitive global market for satellite communication services for the benefit of consumers and providers of satellite services 1 47 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]