Exploring the Unknown - NASA's History Office

32
THE HISTORY OF SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
b. The Bell System, which formerly depended on radio for intercontinental
phone circuits, has been investing heavily and profitably in long submarine
cables; four in the past few years. The first trans-Atlantic phone cable provided
thirty-six circuits (about 140 kc [kilocycle] bandwidth), cost about
$30,000,000.00, and reportedly paid out in its first two years. A second trans-
Atlantic cable soon will be placed in service at a reported cost of
$40,000,000.00, presumably for a similar number of circuits. Tropospheric
scatter radio chains are comparable in cost and are geographically constrained.
c. Comparing the proposed satellite system ($5,000,000.00 for 4500 kc bandwidth)
with submarine cable, it could carry up to thirty times as much traffic
at one-sixth the investment!
[2] 3. Converting “potential” into “actual” economic attractiveness will depend on
acquiring communication traffic, most probably via cooperative agreement with one or
more communication common carriers. General Telephone may be the best prospect
(certainly a better one than the complacent Bell System) because it is trying to gain stature
despite Bell’s long-distance monopoly. The proposed satellite system could bypass Bell
land-lines in linking General’s east-coast and west-coast systems, in addition to giving it
non-Bell circuits to Europe and other continents. General Telephone also could negotiate
more efficiently with the communication services of other countries and even other
domestic companies (Western Union, etc.) than [Hughes Aircraft] could; not being a
common carrier. This and related market survey problems seemed too sensitive to be
explored adequately by the engineers of this task force, even if time and suitable contracts
had been available. General Telephone need not be the only potential partner, of course,
for even a smaller common carrier might supply enough traffic to get started. As few as six
circuits (30 kc out of the available 4500 kc) to Europe should justify a five-million-dollar
investment in proportion to submarine telephone cables.
4. . . . (15 October [Interdepartmental Correspondence] from Lutz to Haeff,
Jerrems) lists three questions which define the scope of the market survey believed to be
desirable. To this list should be added a study of the relative costs and outage times for
splicing a broken cable vs replacing a dead satellite repeater. As a preliminary estimate,
keeping a launching in readiness on Jarvis Island should be less expensive than keeping a
cable ship in readiness and a new satellite could be put up in hours, instead of the weeks
required to locate and repair a cable-break.
5. Technical aspects of the proposed program have been evaluated in more detail,
and with higher confidence in the conclusions, than was possible with the preceeding
[sic] economic aspects. The crux of the technical attractiveness of this program (and an
important economic consideration as well) lies in quick-reaction capability at low cost. By
being able to keep the weight of a simple broad-band repeater payload below 25 lbs, it can
be put in stationary orbit by an inexpensive (one-third million dollars) solid-fuel Scout
booster. Everyone else (NASA, RCA, Space Electronics, Signal Corps) has viewed a stationary
orbit repeater as a more sophisticated, hence heavier device, with attitude control
to use high gain antenna beams on the satellite. More payload weight requires a larger
liquid-fueled rocket and severe logistic problems in transporting or making liquid oxygen
for an equatorial launch. The alternative of launching from the U.S. and “dog-legging”
into an equatorial orbit increases guidance problems and requires Saturn thrusts. Thus,
NASA and others consider the stationary orbit communications repeater as a high-cost
program for 1965-70. This Task Force has convinced itself of the feasibility of puttin [sic]
25 lbs, or possibly 30 lbs, into a useful quasi-stationary orbit with a Scout booster, of achieving
a 4500 kc bandwidth repeater within this weight and of doing this within a year of the
date that full funding is provided.