| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 22.08.09 01:26l 229 Lines 8012 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 61634-CX2SA
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V4 416
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<WA7V<CX2SA
Sent: 090821/2319Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:61634 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:61634-CX2SA
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (Bill Ress)
2. Re: Difference between Yaesu G5400, G5600 and G5500
(bpn518@xxx.xxxx
3. Re: Semi-remoting the controller for a Yaesu G5400
(bpn518@xxx.xxxx
4. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (Rocky Jones)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:04:05 -0700
From: Bill Ress <bill@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS
To: Rocky Jones <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: n3tl@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <4A8EE195.7040402@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Rocky Jones wrote:
> Bill.
>
> The question is cost vrs value.
Well, again that will have to be determined by each person using his or
her values. As I stated in my post, I can see the "value" and gave you
my reasons. Naturally, you open to disagree.
>
> First off there is almost nothing "free" on the spacestation. The
> launch might be, but the devil is in the integration details and cost.
> I dont know what those were for Suitsat1 nor do I know what they are for
> Suitsat 2 (or sat without the suit)...but the instant the "astronauts"
> get involved in any substantive manner the cost go up very very quickly.
But these are not costs to AMSAT (which is what I thought you were
asking) The astronauts are a cost to the US tax payers.
>
> Then the next question is "is it worth" whatever the cost are? That is
> a value judgment and in my view has to be weighed with a lot of factors
> particularly when funds are limited.
Agreed, and each one of us AMSAT members has to determine that. Clearly,
AMSAT leadership has determined the value proposition is there. If you
disagree, do more than write the -bb. Become involved with AMSAT in a
host of ways that have been solicited in the Journal and "work" to make
the changes you would like. Oh by the way, the pay is next to nothing.
Wait a minute - it is nothing!
>
> Was Oscar 40 worth it? A lot was bet on that satellite, had it worked
> (or if it was still working) then the value might have approached the
> cost...as it was well it is hard to argue that the cost put into it was
> worth what was gotten out of it. Suitsat 1 was a simple satellite that
> didnt work, the answer is to try a more complicated one?
Hey, a lot of commercial satellites weren't successes. A lot of vehicle
launches weren't successes. Does that mean we quit if we can't be
"guaranteed or your money back?"
>
> I am quite certain that the "individual" cost of Suitsat 1 and Suitsat 2
> are less then the cost of "doing another AO-7 but things add up and the
> cost of two or three or four of these projects might eventually add up
> to an AO-7 or helping 3E get off the ground.
Nope! That won't add up to a AO-7 or 3E with its $10 million plus launch
cost. Let's say a AO-51 satellite costs $500,000 to built and launch.
That's twenty AO-51 satellites before to get to a GTO launch. Hey, I'll
change my tune about other launches, if any one or a bunch of you P3E
proponents (me included) can pony up the 10 million.
>
> The Russians have a saying "If you (Urinate...they use a different word)
> into your boot then for a bit you are warmer, and then you are colder
> and wonder why you did it" (OK I cleaned it up).
>
> Put another way? Are you happy with the current state of the satellite
> constellation?
I'm never satisfied, that's why I volunteer to built more technically
challenging AMSAT satellites, but I've learn to deal with the harsh
"realities" we're dealt with, and make the best of it.
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
>
> Robert WB5MZO
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you?re up to
> on Facebook. Find out more.
>
<http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:
WL:en-US:SI_SB_facebook:082009>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:06:52 -0400
From: bpn518@xxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Difference between Yaesu G5400, G5600 and
G5500
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <8CBF0A14B9A7241-CA8-B29@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jan,
Yes, add the C in the 5600 controller, and your old motors will work.
I did that with mine, and I now also use the LVB tracker.
Regards,
Bennett ko2ok
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:13:35 -0400
From: bpn518@xxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Semi-remoting the controller for a Yaesu G5400
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <8CBF0A23BE6C554-CA8-BD7@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Lowell,
I think you need only 3 wires for one rotor, and 2 wires for the other
(because you'd use the common hot from the first rotor). However, you wouldn't
know meter reading for end of travel of the motor, and could damage the rotor.
If you are using the remote tracker interface (such as LVB that has front
panel control as well as PC control), you could maybe run long cable from the
tracker interface (in your shack) to the controller (in your garage), and you
would have both control and digital readout of the position, and the LVB would
know end of travel of each motor.
Other ideas?
Regards,
Bennett ko2ok
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:28:11 -0500
From: Rocky Jones <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS
To: <bill@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: n3tl@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL106-W541116AA1D4CB4374EE866D6FC0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Bill...this is a great conversation and I can pick it up later but right now I
need to head up to the ACDO (air carrier district office) and see what the
latest plan is for the next airplane I am learning to fly. I am just getting
back into that loop.
>
> But these are not costs to AMSAT (which is what I thought you were
> asking) The astronauts are a cost to the US tax payers.
I would note this. I dont think that astronaut time is "free" to anyone ie
that all the cost are borne by the US taxpayer.
My experience (although dated) is that the cost are far from free, that they
are to some extent (and a large one) reimbursable to NASA by various
organizations. AND someone has to pay the documentation/integration cost of
the payload. That can be pretty steep. In the case of "Wake Shield" it was
more then the payload itself cost. The suitsat witout a suit is going to ride
up on a Progress and the Russians are far more reasonable then NASA...but I'll
bet money that there are some NASA cost involved to AMSAT in
documentation/integration..
As for AO-40. This was in my view clearly a case of "organizational creep"
where eventually the project became to large for the organizational
capabilities...it is clear from the failures on the ground which initiated the
failures in flight that the organization was far less competent then the task
at hand. I guess I have not heard what was the ultimate "fail point" in
Suitsat but unless it was equipment malfunction it is likely that it was more
of the same. IE trying to do more project then the capabilities of the
organization.
anyway..talk to you later
Robert WB5MZO
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.
http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:W
L:en-US:SI_SB_online:082009
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 4, Issue 416
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
