| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 24.08.09 15:52l 897 Lines 29592 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 62324-CX2SA
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V4 425
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<F8KFY<F4DUR<CX2SA
Sent: 090824/1349Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:62324 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:62324-CX2SA
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: MFJ/Cushcraft (Joe)
2. Re: Fw: Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
(Gary "Joe" Mayfield)
3. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) (Daniel Schultz)
4. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) (N0JY)
5. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) (Jack K.)
6. Re: AO-40 (was Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal))
(George Henry)
7. Re: AO-40 (was Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal))
(Dave Donaldson)
8. AO-51 repeater uplink on 145.880 MHz (OZ1MY)
9. Re: lvb tracker circuit -- xtal? (Stefano Simonetti)
10. Re: AO-51 repeater uplink on 145.880 MHz (Dale Hershberger)
11. A rocket fuel called Alice (Trevor .)
12. Re: AO-51 repeater uplink on 145.880 MHz (Andrew Glasbrenner)
13. IC-9100 (Howard Kowall)
14. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) (i8cvs)
15. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) (Robert Bruninga)
16. High LEO for cubesat? (Bruce Robertson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:28:33 -0500
From: Joe <nss@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: MFJ/Cushcraft
To: Scott Richardson <scott@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4A91FAD1.8050007@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
I've been an Amateur for since 1975 and cushcraft serves their
purpose, they are the Walmart or Mc Donalds of the antenna world.
Joe WB9SBD
Scott Richardson wrote:
>>The list of "problems" goes on.
>>
>>
>
>FWIW the only Cushcraft item I ever purchased was built on the "MFJ model."
>It wasn't till after a rig went up in smoke that I discovered that only one
>half of the driven element was connected inside the factory-assembled feed
>housing. From my unfortunate perspective, the Cushcraft move to MFJ seems
>appropriate.
>
>Scott N1AIA
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
>Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
>Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.65/2322 - Release Date: 08/23/09
18:03:00
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:46:30 -0500
From: "Gary \"Joe\" Mayfield" <gary_mayfield@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Fw: Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: "'amsat bb'" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL0-DAV309841303423F3A56AE5B38AF90@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I planned to stay out of this but I would like to know what --
"On AO40 a signature on a checkout document at launch site says motor was
checked by those responsible. The checkout document (not amsat's) reveals
that the necessary mod to doc revealing need to do an extra operation was
not present."
means exactly.
The first sentence is pretty clear, but the second one is fuzzy. Does
it mean no one modified the document to explain another operation was needed
before launch?
Thanks,
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of rwmcgwier@xxxxx.xxx
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 1:07 PM
To: amsat bb
Subject: [amsat-bb] Fw: Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: rwmcgwier@xxxxx.xxx
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:05:42
To: Rocky Jones<orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
This note is based on an almost complete ignorance of both projects. On
AO40 a signature on a checkout document at launch site says motor was
checked by those responsible. The checkout document (not amsat's) reveals
that the necessary mod to doc revealing need to do an extra operation was
not present. Result: crap happens. Everything tested before motor burn
seemed fine. Don't know many craft that could take this amd go on to
deliver years of service. We all cry over the lost opportunity but it was
still a major achievement.
Suitsat 1 worked before transport. It was tested. We will never know what
went wrong in transit.
I understand everyone's desire for more and better results but before you
level a cannon, at least know what you are talking about.
73's
Bob n4hy
------Original Message------
From: Rocky Jones
Sender: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx
To: n8fgv@xxx.xxx
To: amsat bb
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
Sent: Aug 23, 2009 1:38 PM
>
> Dan Schultz N8FGV
>
>
based on your logic no criticism whatsoever is warranted.
As for AO-40. It failed for the same reason that suitsat 1 did, and for the
same reason that a lot of people who build their own airplane kill
themselves every year trying to "test fly it"....the project got to big for
the organization that was building it...ie their technical competence was
insufficient for the task at hand.
But in your view (at least as best as I understand it) that evaluation
should not be made because "at least they tried".
sorry I dont buy that logic
Robert WB5MZO
_________________________________________________________________
HotmailR is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:W
M_HYGN_faster:082009
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:58:47 -0400
From: "Daniel Schultz" <n8fgv@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <259NHXD6v4638S28.1251086327@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>As for AO-40. It failed for the same reason that suitsat 1 did, and for the
>same reason that a lot of people who build their own airplane kill
themselves
>every year trying to "test fly it"....the project got to big for the
>organization that was building it...ie their technical competence was
>insufficient for the task at hand.
Spaceflight is dangerous business, unforgiving of the smallest human error.
Results are never guaranteed. If we can't take a bloody nose without crying
about it then we don't belong in this business.
Dan Schultz N8FGV
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:17:58 -0500
From: N0JY <n0jy@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4A921476.5010200@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I believe you are right, Bob. The total number of dissenting opinions
at least on the -bb have been few. I have been silent, although tempted
to reply, but I believe you have hit the nail on the head. I believe
the "silent majority" is behind AMSAT.
Jerry
N0JY
Bob Bruninga wrote:
> The broad membership believes in the AMSAT mission and contributes to help
these poor souls make progress and hopes for the best.
>
> Bob, Wb4APR
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:03:14 -0600
From: "Jack K." <kd1pe.1@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: <n0jy@xxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <0427B048CDB748299F8240CDBA657DF3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
There can be no arguement that you both are right, the question is, what
about those who left AMSAT or no longer pay due because they also -
silently - are voting with thier talents, skills, and money which are not
available... It is no problem to have a group which is in - at least tacit -
agreement, just force the others out or ignore them until they leave.
DE KD1PE
>I believe you are right, Bob. The total number of dissenting opinions
> at least on the -bb have been few. I have been silent, although tempted
> to reply, but I believe you have hit the nail on the head. I believe
> the "silent majority" is behind AMSAT.
>
> Jerry
> N0JY
>
> Bob Bruninga wrote:
>> The broad membership believes in the AMSAT mission and contributes to
>> help these poor souls make progress and hopes for the best.
>>
>> Bob, Wb4APR
>>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:41:45 -0500
From: "George Henry" <ka3hsw@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 (was Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS
(rebuttal))
To: "amsat bb" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <18E04157587444719E9452D939311698@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rocky Jones" <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <ke9v@xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>; "Amsat BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 2:30 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
>
> Jeff...
>
>
>>
>> Clearly the kind of mistake that caused the catastrophic failure could
>> have happened on any spacecraft assembled by any organization.
>
> nope.
>
> OK anyone has a statistical chance of dying or any project has a
> statistical chance of failing but the more complex a project is the more
> likely it is to fail...and AO-40 as it grew more complex needed larger
> size which then needed a more powerful rocket engine...which ...
The explosion on AO-40 had NOTHING to do with the size of the motor: it was
the result of HUMAN FAILURE.
[snip]
>
> If that is the case then we are, after 3E gets its launch done in HEO
> sats...a reasonable hope is that with some new launch vehicles coming on
> IE Falcon9 etc there might be some opportunities for "reduced rate"
> launches...but who knows. What I wonder is if there is any reluctance on
> the part of launch vehicle providers after the 40 incident to let "amateur
> propulsion" ride on their vehicle. It is after all "rocket science".
>
Why would any launch provider have any qualms about flying a payload with a
motor that a) flew successfully several times previously and b) when it DID
fail, did so LONG after separation from the launch vehicle?????
So far, Ariane has a far higher failure rate than any payload that it has
carried. In fact, that's probably true of just about EVERY launch
provider.
More payloads have been "killed" by their launch vehicles than the other way
around...
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:47:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dave Donaldson <wb7dru@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 (was Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS
(rebuttal))
To: amsat bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <4A922976.3050102@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
A couple of responses come to mind NOT DIRECTED AT ANYONE IN PARTICULAR
(sorry for yelling)
1) If ham's left AMSAT because of AO-40 failure we cannot do anything
about that. That was their choice. We need to be thankful for the
many who have stayed with their talent and $.
2) Remember NASA's recent failed flights to mars a few years ago. How
about the one that failed because of the feet to meter conversion
problem. Failure is a fact of life. We are humans, we fail. We learn
from the past and move on. Having been an engineer who was accused of
failing on a big project I can tell you it can happen to you (the
collective you). It's life. Unless we have ALL the information from
the post failure investigation (which I suspect we don't) since we
cannot draw firm conclusions. Seem the current documentation quoted was
a little fuzzy.
3) I think SuitSat2 is a great place to test hardware and have fun while
it lasts. Thank you Russia for working with us, wish our government
worked with us (I know why they can't). I can say that I worked through
a hand launched
4) This has been a good discussion to follow.
73 to all
Dave
WB7DRU
--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! --
http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:28:24 +0200
From: "OZ1MY" <oz1my@xxxxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] AO-51 repeater uplink on 145.880 MHz
To: "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <000501ca2484$15880840$6401a8c0@xxxxxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi all,
The uplink right now is on 145.880 MHz.
It may change later.
73 OZ1MY
Ib
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 06:45:20 +0000 (GMT)
From: Stefano Simonetti <iw1rdz@xxxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: lvb tracker circuit -- xtal?
To: Allen Fugelseth <allen@xxxxxx.xxx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <605498.29625.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Thanks Allen,
my unit is not really a new unit that does not run, it is a homebrewed unit on
a what we call "1000 fori" board (a board with holes that you have to wire).
Today I changed Xtal with a 4.433.... and tried the in circuit programming
(picprog procedure).
Finally, when I understood how the reset button must be used, I succeeded in
program the pic.
Rs232 communication seems to?answer something to the command C+ENTER, but what
I receive are characters without sense.
At this point I think the only?thing wrong is the not exact frequency of my
XTAL.
No LCD yet.
I add also Howard to email,?in case?he would be so kindly to comment even on a
homebrewed LVB board.
Ciao, Stefano.
________________________________
Da: Allen Fugelseth <allen@xxxxxx.xxx>
A: Stefano Simonetti <iw1rdz@xxxxx.xx>
Inviato: Luned? 24 agosto 2009, 1:37:19
Oggetto: RE: [amsat-bb] lvb tracker circuit -- xtal?
I don't know. I had a problem with mine not working after I upgraded it. I had
an earlier revision and I wanted to upgrade it to the latest and greatest. I
sent the PIC and the revised hex file from G6LVB on his web page. to a friend.
My friend has the capability to program PICs. He reprogrammed it, but the
circuit wouldn't work. It wouldn't oscillate.? So I wrote to G6LVB describing
my problem and he sent back what I sent to you. In my case I had a working
unit, but I broke it with the new upgraded version hex code. G6LVB sent me the
additional code as I sent to you. My friend added the code and the PIC worked.
I think the main problem was that the oscillator input to the PIC wasn't set.
Apparently it must be done in the first four bits sent to the PIC. This gets
the PIC clock input receiving the clocking signal and the PIC runs. The PIC
can be configured to use an xtal, RC, and one or two other clock inputs. With
the xtal the PIC can be configured to
provide an oscillator with the 4 MHZ xtal.
?
I could ask my friend what FPW=on is.? I am not any kind of an expert here. I
have learned all of this by talking with smart?people. I had to go to G6LVB.
Don't be afraid to email him and inquire. He seems to be a friendly guy and
willing to help. I take it that your unit is new and hasn't worked yet.
?
My friend is Harold Hallikainen, WA6FDN. He is at Hallikainen.org. He is
another nice guy. He is one of my resources for knowledge of these things.
?
Harold programmed my PIC externally. Howard expected these to be programmed
with his software, but I don't remember why I originally didn't program it
that way. Maybe I couldn't get it to work for me. Harold priginally programmed
my PIC. I believe we also had the configure problem then also. I remember
trying diffrent xtals and maybe capacitors. The prblem turned out to be these
first four configuration bits.? If you take a look at the data sheet for the
PIC I think you will find something about these config bits.
?
I/m sorry that I could not have been more help here.
?
73,
Allen WB6RWU
-----Original Message-----
>From: Stefano Simonetti [mailto:iw1rdz@xxxxx.xxx
>Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 1:54 PM
>To: Allen Fugelseth
>Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] lvb tracker circuit -- xtal?
>
>
>thanks Allen, I tried now with the configuration you wrote.
>
>In IC-PROG I've set:
>
>Osc: XT
>Write enable: WRT OFF
>Fuses:
>WDT:disable
>PWRT (Power up timer):enable (this you call PUT)
>Boden:disable (this is BOD)
>LVP: disable
>CPD (code protection data):disable? (this is data EE prot)
>CP (code protection): disable
>BDM (background debugger mode): disable (this is BDG)
>
>But what is FPW=on ? I could not find in IC-Prog, even if at the end, with
this configuration, IC-prog gave the exact config word:? 3F31.
>
>Now, the cases are 2:
>
>1) there is a big mistake in?my circuit, apart the xtal, that I cannot see...
>2) FPW that I did not recognize in Ic-prog, makes the difference, even if the
configuration word is exact (strange I think).
>
>What do you think?
>
>Stefano.
>
>
>
________________________________
Da: Allen Fugelseth <allen@xxxxxx.xxx>
>A: Stefano Simonetti <iw1rdz@xxxxx.xx>
>Inviato: Domenica 23 agosto 2009, 0:48:09
>Oggetto: RE: [amsat-bb] lvb tracker circuit -- xtal?
>
>I had this problem. The problem was at the begining of the program in the
>first instruction, the program needs to tell the PIC to use a xtal osc as a
>clock sourece.? The PIC will use maybe four kinds of time bases. RC. xtal,
>etc. A ham friend was programing the PCI externally for me and I had to go
>to Howard to get a solution. The following is what he told me. After my
>friend WA6FDN added some code, the PIC worked fine.
>
>Hi Allen.
>
>Normally, you don't program it with a PIC programmer, it is programmed in
>situ using the picprog.exe program on my website
>http://www.g6lvb.com/Articles/LVBTracker/PicProg.exe and run from the
>command line of a Windows PC using a real (not USB emulated) serial port.
>This sets the correct configuration bits: way back in 2001?? When I
>originally did the tracker, there was no Hex file example provided by
>Microchip that included the config bits, so I hard wired them in the
>programmer.
>
>If you really do want to program the PIC outside of the tracker, then the
>correct bits to set are:
>
>??? // Osc=XT, WDT off, PUT on, BOD off, LVP off, FPW on, DBG off, data
>EE prot off, CodeProt off
>??? au16Data[0x2007]=0x3F31;
>
>[stolen form the picprog.c source code!]
>
>I hope this helps you.
>Allen WB6RWU
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxxxx
>Behalf Of Stefano Simonetti
>Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 2:45 PM
>To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>Subject: [amsat-bb] lvb tracker circuit -- xtal?
>
>
>Hi, I have problems in?making?the LVB tracker circuit run.
>
>I have built the LVB tracker ver. PCB v1.2, Firmware v0.7, Programmer v0.2,
>Documentation v1.9, ?7 Dec 2004, by G6LVB.
>
>The firmware was flashed?successfully with IC-PROG v 1.06B, a
>homebrewed?interface for LPT, and an old PC with LPT1 running win98.??
>
>The LVB circuit requires?a 4 MHz?XTAL for the PIC 16F876A.
>
>I tried with a?10MHz, and a 3,5795MHz?as I?haven't a 4MHz. No success. No
>LCD,?no serial communication at all.
>
>Does anybody?know if the problem could be?in having?installed a
>different?xtal (i.e.: does?the firmware takes care about the frequency of
>the clock?)?
>
>Regards, Stefano Simonetti (IW1RDZ) - Italy.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
>Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
>Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:24 -0600
From: Dale Hershberger <daleh@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-51 repeater uplink on 145.880 MHz
To: OZ1MY <oz1my@xxxxxx.xx>
Cc: amsat bbs <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <4A921D00.8020209@xxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
OZ1MY wrote:
> Hi all,
> The uplink right now is on 145.880 MHz.
>
> It may change later.
>
> 73 OZ1MY
> Ib
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
>
Thanks Ib,
That explains why I could not hear my downlink. I was successful with
AO27 and SO50. I could hear my signal
but I could hear others.
Dale KL7XJ
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:05:33 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Trevor ." <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] A rocket fuel called Alice
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <15453.47580.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
NASA and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, or AFOSR, have
successfully launched a small rocket using an environmentally-friendly, safe
propellant comprised of aluminum powder and water ice, called ALICE, see
http://www.southgatearc.org/news/august2009/alice.htm
----
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:30:17 -0400
From: "Andrew Glasbrenner" <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-51 repeater uplink on 145.880 MHz
To: "OZ1MY" <oz1my@xxxxxx.xx>, "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <25116C90B988499F9E67282657C622B1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Yes, sorry about that. It's back to 145.92 where it should be now.
73, Drew KO4MA
----- Original Message -----
From: "OZ1MY" <oz1my@xxxxxx.xx>
To: "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 2:28 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] AO-51 repeater uplink on 145.880 MHz
> Hi all,
> The uplink right now is on 145.880 MHz.
>
> It may change later.
>
> 73 OZ1MY
> Ib
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:10:23 -0500
From: "Howard Kowall" <hkowall@xxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] IC-9100
To: "AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <002801ca24bc$3d969210$6701a8c0@xxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello to all
There was some discussion about the new Icom IC-9100
I found this glimpse of it on this video from the Ham Fair in Tokyo
Howard
VE4ISP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7Z7pEKkpg
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:31:26 +0200
From: "i8cvs" <domenico.i8cvs@xxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: "Rocky Jones" <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>, "Daniel Schultz"
<n8fgv@xxx.xxx>, "Amsat BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <001501ca24bf$2e9439e0$0201a8c0@xxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rocky Jones" <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <n8fgv@xxx.xxx>; "Amsat BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:38 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
As for AO-40. It failed for the same reason that suitsat 1 did, and for the
same reason that a lot of people who build their own airplane kill
themselves every year trying to "test fly it"....the project got to big for
the organization that was building it...ie their technical competence was
insufficient for the task at hand.
But in your view (at least as best as I understand it) that evaluation
should not be made because "at least they tried".
sorry I dont buy that logic
Robert WB5MZO
Hi Robert, WB5MZO
Why in your opinion many commercial and military satellites fails every
year on launch or in orbit.....and even the STS-107 failed ?
Why for AO-40 in your opinion the project got to big for the organization
that was building it i.e. AMSAT that was building it ?
And why in your opinion the technical competence of AMSAt-NA+ AMSAT-DL
and many other AMSAT's partecipating to designe and build AO-40 was
insufficient for the task at hand after demonstrating to be in condition to
create all existing amateur OSCAR satellites beginning from OSCAR-6 to
OSCAR-10 and OSCAR-13 ? ?
Just curious to know
73" de
i8CVS Domenico
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:46:10 -0400
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <7C6F901069E545258B55941C0024A6A9@xxxxx.xxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> I believe you are right, Bob. The total
> number of dissenting opinions at least on
> the -bb have been few. ... I believe
> the "silent majority" is behind AMSAT.
Oh, by-the-way, I have received lots of private-off-BB email
agreement. Normally I reply to each such private email, but
since there have been so many, I thought I would save time and
thank those individuals all at once if the opportunity came up.
They rightly didn't want to add any more emails to this
burdensome thread that comes up every few months and then wastes
everone's precious time... So lets all hang in there, work the
satellites, and work with groups that are building satellites,
and contribute where we can... Or get out of the way. Bob.
> Bob Bruninga wrote:
>> The broad membership believes in the AMSAT
>> mission and contributes to help these poor
>> souls make progress and hopes for the best.
>>
>> Bob, Wb4APR
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:45:04 -0300
From: Bruce Robertson <ve9qrp@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] High LEO for cubesat?
To: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<49657a760908240645y6ddbcb65n9251f070b3806636@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Much of the debate on the board here arises from our common desire to
see the launching of satellites with a larger footprint.
A fine analysis of one approach to this is the video and ppt of David,
G0MRF, discussing his ideas for a bird that reaches the financial
sweet spot, between LEO and HEO, a 'middle earth orbit, or MEO.
http://www.batc.tv/vod/AMSAT-UK_MEO.flv
and
http://www.uk.amsat.org/2009/2c_Bowman-MEO.pdf
He points out that a bird at 7000 km altitude is beyond the inner
radiation belt and yet has a pass duration of 90 minutes and a
footprint diameter of over 13,000 km.
Here's the great thing, though: it is possible to do an orbital
transfer from LEO to MEO.
David points out some difficulties, though: VLSI electronics
components are not as tolerant of radiation than others, and the
attitude control of the second burn might be tricky.
Another approach (also gleaned from David's rich harvest), which would
be even more simple, and perhaps within the realm of a 3x cubesat,
would be to raise a typical cubesat from its 650km altitude to the
1400km or so that has made AO-7 so popular.
An elliptical orbit, requiring only one 'burn' might even be seen as
an advantage. As David says, it would allow for the bird eventually to
be deorbited, but it would also mean that periodically the bird could
be used with very simple antennas for local communications, and on
other occasions would require a better groundstation affording a wider
footprint.Using DH2VA's propulsion spreasheet, I see that delta_v for
one half of a Hohmann Transfer Orbit from 650 to 1500 is 212 m/sec
ish. Since my understanding of the HTO is that it comprises two burns,
one creating an ellipse, the second turning that ellipse into a
circle, I've assumed that that number is about right for an elliptical
orbit with the final altitude.
Using David's http://g0mrf.com/MEOSAT.htm, I gather that the Isp of a
cold-gas thruster is about 60 sec, which should be enough to get the
necessary delta_v above.
And then there's the transponder. With William PE1RAH's transponder
board in hand, and the work about to be done on FUNCUBE (not to
mention Delfi C3 and NE3T), we should have a very good idea of what
can be achieved with linear transponders in small LEO vessels. With
one or two of the cubes dedicated to thrust, we'd have lots of solar
panel area. What about a software transponder vs. hardware transponder
shootout with respect to volume and power requirements? Could a
software transponder include the modulation/demod of a suitable
digital mode, allowing less elaborate stations to work the bird at
apogee?
Anyway, that's the sort of fun one can have with the materials that
David has provided.
>From a promotional standpoint, a project that aims to provide the
functionality of AO-7 could highlight the remarkable success of that
bird and at the same time point out the new opportunities and
challenges in space.
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 425
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
