backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 51 comment(s) - last by tanishalfelven.. on Dec 3 at 1:57 PM

The Alphasat I-XL, designed by Astrium. Note the massive antenna reflector.  (Source: EADS Astrium)
Britain is developing one whopper of a telecom satellite

Weighing it at six metric tons, the Alphasat I-XL will be one of the largest commercial satellites in existence upon its completion. The satellite, sponsored by London based industrialist Inmarsat, will provide high-speed internet service in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Inmarsat maintains a high-speed global broadband network, called BGan.  BGan is made up of already large I-4 satellites, but it is falling behind broadband demands and needed an even bigger satellite partner to anchor the network. 

That’s where the I-XL comes roaring into the picture.  It will support over five times the capability of its predecessors.  The satellite will allow business people to get half-megabit internet connections on land and sea, anywhere in the world, no matter how remote.  It is attracting significant support from journalists, disaster relief workers, the maritime industry, and the petroleum industry.  The system uses laptop size terminals to catch the signal.

EADS Astrium has been tasked with providing the brains for this brawny satellite.  The firm is enthused about the new business venture with Inmarsat.  They feel their signal processing and central processing capabilities will give the satellite an unbeatable edge.

"This satellite will access additional spectrum and it will be able to supply approximately five times the communications capacity of a single Inmarsat 4 satellite.  With advances we've made, we've been able to pack an awful lot more electronics within the existing volume. It is a technology step forward in terms of the brains of the satellite which is built in the UK," said Dave Robson from EADS Astrium, the firm designing the satellite's signal processing.

Astrium will also be manufacturing the spacecraft chassis and is partnering with Thales Alenia Space for this part of the work.

The European Space Agency (ESA) and France's space agency, CENS, are collaborating on the project to provide a sufficient platform to support the satellite's needs. The new platform is dubbed “Alphabus” and is designed to help Europe stay competitive in the commercial satellite market.   Inmarsat will be its first commercial customer.  The Alphabus platform can support satellites of up to eight tons and 18 kW of payload power.  It also is looking to implement ion thrusters in the future to provide a more efficient boost for large satellites in order to help them stay in orbit.

The I-XL features a beefy 12m aperture antenna reflector.  Its mission length is 15 years, and it will require a hearty 12 kW of power during this time.
 
The price tag of the I-XL for Inmarsat will be around 260m €.  The Alphabus platform, whose bill is being footed by 16 participating states, will cost around 440m €.

Due to the massive size, the I-XL will likely have to launch on an Ariane 5 rocket, Europe's premier launch vehicle.  A launch target of 2013 has been set.

For more space news, check out DailyTech's coverage of JAXA's high definition earth-rise and moon pictures, and the November 2007 international space updates.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
States
By mendocinosummit on 11/26/2007 9:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Alphabus platform, whose bill is being footed by 16 participating states , will cost around 440m €.


So, are EU partners loosing their nationality and becoming more of a common nation than a economic union?




RE: States
By CSMR on 11/26/2007 9:54:58 AM , Rating: 5
Your question may still stand but state has been a correct word for a nation since at least the 19th century.


RE: States
By mendocinosummit on 11/26/2007 9:59:21 AM , Rating: 2
I have usually heard it as the State, our State, and such. I have never heard it as grouping 16 nations and then calling them states, but the EU could be leaning that way.


RE: States
By Etsp on 11/26/2007 11:00:00 AM , Rating: 3
if I remember correctly, you are 100% correct. The word states with a lowercase s refers to the states in the United States, the word States with an uppercase S refers to a sovereign nation.


RE: States
By wordsworm on 11/26/07, Rating: -1
RE: States
By Ringold on 11/26/2007 11:38:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
sovereign nation, if such exists


I can understand the leftist view that perhaps we should all just hug, but asides from a couple satellite states, such as Syria-Iran, or whatever a place like Guam may be defined as, there are plenty of nations that don't call and ask permission to pass pieces of legislation X, Y, and Z, whatever they may be. They may be good neighbors and gauge the impact on international relations that any big pieces of legislation may pass, but they dont have to ask permission.

Unlike in the EU, which already shares a great deal of regulation that Brussels essentially must rubber stamp. Switzerland, in particular, still relishes the fact that they aren't bowing to socialists such as yourself and yielding their right of self determination to some distant capital, as their recent elections suggest.

The entire Arab world would also likely bristle at your view; sovereignty to them is relatively new, and being so recently removed from the colonial yoke I don't reckon they'll be following your party line for quite a long time.

Wow. Praising the middle east as a place that may preserve freedom. That's a bloody first.


RE: States
By Haven Bartton on 11/26/2007 12:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
That's interesting as even Canada still passes every bill under the eyes of the Governor General, who is appointed as the Queen's proxy. But I don't think there's ever been any reason to back out of this arrangement, really.


RE: States
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/26/2007 11:34:59 AM , Rating: 2
More specifically:

Nation is the definition assigned to a group of people that may cross sovereign borders. A perfect example of this is Canada, which is a two nation state.


RE: States
By Janooo on 11/26/2007 12:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I know Canada has more than two nations.


RE: States
By Ringold on 11/26/2007 12:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
And America probably has a hundred nations, if you ask the opinion of surviving natives.

Sounds to me like this is heading in to a politically correct Neverland :P


RE: States
By Sahrin on 11/26/2007 2:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
Look on the bright side; it'll never get old!


RE: States
By Missing Ghost on 11/26/2007 11:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? What are the two nations? I don't see how you could split 10 provinces and 3 territories as "two nations"....


RE: States
By drebo on 11/26/2007 9:55:54 AM , Rating: 2
It's a generic term. It doesn't have the same meaning in a context outside of the US.


RE: States
By wordsworm on 11/26/2007 10:30:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's a generic term. It doesn't have the same meaning in a context outside of the US.
It used to be that the states in the US were independent nations. When they came together under a single federal power, it was called 'the United States.' So, nothing has really changed. It's just that many people get confused.


RE: States
By Oregonian2 on 11/26/2007 1:18:03 PM , Rating: 3
Well... except that the U.S. was supposed to be a much looser federation of the states. The U.S. Federal government staged a creeping coup that has usurped much of the power that was supposed to be with the states and has "taken over the joint". And it continues to slowly by slowly continue to take away state power (and it's doing so goes to the federal supreme court which is a laugh.. chickens in the coop appealing to the fox'es court).


RE: States
By Ringold on 11/26/2007 11:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
It's in unguarded moments of honesty, I believe, when the truth tends to come out. Calling them states rather than nations is if nothing else a subconcious admission that the European Union is, by rather undemocratic means, but for the good of the people , becoming as you said a single grouping of previously sovereign nations.

Once this new "treaty" is "ratified" the process will be nearly complete, save for a unified military and other knick-nacks, but the United States didn't have a particularly unified military structure until, what, The Spanish-American war, or was it WW1 when it was first fielded?


RE: States
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/26/2007 11:40:39 AM , Rating: 2
Depends. During the Spanish-American war it became unified, but it wasn't until WW1 that we expanded it into the different branches and it became the basis of what we have today. WW2 truly defined the American military and all branches of service. The next large scale war will also encompas the U.S. Space Force, which is currently part of the U.S. Air Force and based in Vandenburg, California.


RE: States
By Ringold on 11/26/2007 12:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
That's about what I thought, I just wasn't sure when units stopped be formed along state lines.

quote:
The next large scale war will also encompas the U.S. Space Force


It wasn't easy for the Air Force to spin itself off, and the Marines have always had to fight for their survival. That'll be interesting to see how a US Space Force ultimately comes in to being.

Me, I'd rather see it come under the auspices of the Navy, but Star Trek and Star Wars play in that bias quite a bit.. General of the Space Fleet? Hmm..


RE: States
By Merry on 11/26/2007 12:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's in unguarded moments of honesty, I believe, when the truth tends to come out.....

At the risk of sounding like a bit of a flame baiter here, what the hell does that have to do with the question in hand.

Also you clearly dont know very much of the EU reform treaty, which is extending the role of the European Parliament (democratically elected) over the council (rather secretive - but still indirectly elected) via the use of QMV, indeed this process has been occurring throughout the past 15 years, so if anything the EU is getting more democratic. I would think there are a few institutional reforms within the treaty too, mainly due to the recent enlargements.

As for the state of integration, it is no-where near the level you infer, nor will it ever be.

As i said, rant aside, this has nothing to with the question in hand. I'm just pretty tired of reading your ill-informed right wing rants on the comments sections of topics which clearly have nothing to do with such matters.

p.s Before you call that a 'left wing rant' i'm actually not even remotely left wing.


RE: States
By Ringold on 11/26/2007 1:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
You've obviously got no idea what you're tal