Yamal-101 | |
Names List: | Ямал-101 Yamal-100 KA-1 |
Mission Type: | Communications |
Operator: | Gazprom Space Systems |
Cospar Id: | 1999-047A |
Satcat: | 25896 |
Website: | https://www.gazprom-spacesystems.ru |
Mission Duration: | 12 years (planned) Failed on orbit |
Spacecraft: | Yamal-101 |
Spacecraft Type: | Yamal-100 |
Spacecraft Bus: | USP Bus |
Manufacturer: | RSC Energia (bus) Space Systems/Loral (payload) |
Power: | 2200 watts |
Launch Date: | 6 September 1999, 16:36:00 UTC |
Launch Rocket: | Proton-K / Blok DM-2M |
Launch Site: | Baikonur, Site 81/23 |
Launch Contractor: | Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center |
Entered Service: | Failed on orbit |
Last Contact: | 6 September 1999 |
Orbit Reference: | Geocentric orbit |
Orbit Regime: | Geostationary orbit |
Orbit Longitude: | 49° East (planned) |
Apsis: | gee |
Trans Band: | 12 C-band |
Trans Coverage: | Russia |
Insignia Size: | 200px |
Programme: | Yamal constellation |
Next Mission: | Yamal-102 |
Yamal-101 (Russian: Russian: '''Ямал-101''') was an intended geostationary communications satellite that was lost after launch. It was built by RSC Energia and operated by Gazprom Space Systems. It was, along with Yamal-102 the first communications satellite of the Yamal programme and the first iteration of the USP Bus. It was a satellite with 2200 watts of power (1300 watts available for the payload) on an unpressurized bus. It had eight SPT-70 electric thrusters by OKB Fakel for station keeping. Its payload was 12 C-band equivalent transponders supplied by Space Systems/Loral.
It was launched successfully with Yamal-102, on 6 September 1999 at 16:36:00 UTC from Baikonur Site 81/23 by a Proton-K / Blok DM-2M directly to geostationary orbit. Due to a failure in the electrical system at solar panel deployment it was lost right after launch.
After Yamal-101 failed, Gazprom Space Systems registered Yamal-102 as Yamal-101. This caused significant confusion, but the records are clear that the satellite that failed was the original Yamal-101. Insurance paid US$50 million for the failure.[1]