| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 22.08.09 21:08l 135 Lines 5522 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 61850-CX2SA
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V4 420
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<F8KFY<CX2SA
Sent: 090822/1906Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:61850 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:61850-CX2SA
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) (Bruce Robertson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:49:45 -0300
From: Bruce Robertson <ve9qrp@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: Rocky Jones <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>, AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<49657a760908221049v4e6a9d04lecb9f3330fbac3f0@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Rocky Jones<orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:53:11 +0000
>> From: ke9v@xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx
>> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:35:29PM -0500, Rocky Jones wrote:
>> >
>> > Bruce...so we are doing satellites now for their educational not
communicative value?
>>
>> Why not?
>
>> --
>> Jeff, KE9V
>
> because if we do satellites for educational purposes then the effort is non
sustainable.
I wonder what you and others think of my contention that this is a
false dichotomy. Must it be impossible for a satellite to have both a
communication and a educative role in some proportion? Similarly, does
not something like Delfi C3 have combined research and communication
roles? While smaller Cubesat projects educate their builders and
groundstation crews, but provide us amateurs with new challenges:
during COMPASS's troubles a year ago, I was thrilled to be entrusted,
like the rest of us in AMSAT, with the responsibilities of a command
station.
> you can already see that in the trends in the US.
> the most popular birds (the FM birds) are ones for whom commercial equipment
from the antenna to the radio is available and is relatively user friendly.
?the more "esoteric" the communication platform gets the less used it is. ?The
less people who can use a platform then the less people there are to
contribute to building new ones...and the less people there are then the less
likely it is that manufactors will build equipment which will allow more
people to use the platform.
>
> It is a negative feedback in a gain loop and to use a phrase "the
oscillation" stops.
I can't see how this theory accounts for the prevalence of linear
transponders in the upcoming satellites: Kiwisat, Funsat, etc. It
ought to predict that these birds would focus on FM alone, and in high
power.
> That is what makes the decisions on AO 40 so lame. ?Instead of building a
satellite which would provide Oscar 10/13 communications (with maybe something
at 2.4 ghz which could become reliable) they had to go build a super sat which
was going to do things that were simply out of reach of all but a very few
hams (40ghz? or whatever it was) .. it got more and more complicated,
obviously to complicated for the people who were building it...and now it and
the money that built it are gone.
Concentrating on the future, it should be reiterated here that the
money to build satellites is not what we lack; it is the money now
required to launch to HEO. P3E is well in hand, as I understand it;
but the $10m is nowhere in sight. What we lost in AO-40 was the last
free ride.
> I'll bet you money that if the truth came out, what happened with Suitsat 2
and the suits is that the project grew so "complicated" that the folks
building it just missed various deadlines ie they couldnt get the thing built.
? ?Who knows if they will be able to meet the next deadline (ie for a 2010
early lift) ?of if it will work or not, the first one a much simpler system
was a pretty solid failure.
I'm afraid we again take the opposite view of these matters. Even if
your opinion of the timeline were correct, I would prefer that we do
something innovative and something which will form that basis for our
further work in space at the cost of complete timeliness. Moreover, I
find it rather frustrating that you conclude your discussion with an
assessment that SS-1 was a 'failure' when my previous letter was meant
to indicate that from one standpoint, education, and in one locale,
mine, it was most decidedly not.
> If "educating our youth" (a tired NASA phrase) starts becoming the
foundation for anything in ham radio...then before long we will find there is
no ham radio. ?This of course follows NASA in general. ?They have failed to
make human spaceflight relevant to the rest of America in anything but pretty
tired phrases...and if you have not noticed there are big changes ahead.
>
> Robert WB5MZO
I think we can set aside this dire prediction because AMSAT has not
declared 'educating our youth' as its foundation. However much I enjoy
discussing satellites with young people, I'm not sure I would endorse
it formally doing so. Returning to the idea that our projects have
many complementary purposes, perhaps we can just agree that this is a
worthy activity among many that our AMSAT dues and gifts support in
some measure and that some of us pursue more vigorously than others?
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these matters openly and in a
friendly manner, Robert.
73, Bruce
VE9QRP
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 420
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
