| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 11.10.11 23:40l 763 Lines 29387 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB6564
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V6 564
Path: IZ3LSV<IW0QNL<JH4XSY<JM1YTR<JE7YGF<N9PMO<CX2SA
Sent: 111011/2135Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:31937 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB6564
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: geostationary satellite:thinking outside the box (andy thomas)
2. Re: Geostationary Satellites (Ken Ernandes)
3. Re: KickSat - a personal spacecraft of your own in space
(Trevor .)
4. Re: Geostationary Satellites (Dave Marthouse)
5. Re: Geostationary Satellites (Dave Marthouse)
6. SatPc32 kepler Data (Howard Kowall)
7. Re: Geostationary Satellites (Gordon JC Pearce)
8. Re: Geostationary Satellites-HEO MEO (Dee)
9. Re: Geostationary Satellites (Joe)
10. Re: SatPc32 kepler Data (Dee)
11. Re: SatPc32 kepler Data (Mark L. Hammond)
12. Re: SatPc32 kepler Data (George Henry)
13. Re: Geostationary Satellites (Trevor .)
14. Re: Geostationary Satellites (Ken Ernandes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:00:44 +0100 (BST)
From: andy thomas <andythomasmail@xxxxx.xx.xx>
To: amsat <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: geostationary satellite:thinking outside the
box
Message-ID:
<1318359644.33551.YahooMailNeo@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I wonder if we could build a LEO uplinking to and downlinkingf rom a
geosationary satellite on its spare transponder capacity? Initially by AX25
packet from ground to the LEO sat on our frequencies, then by license up to
the geo which would see the leo longer than a ground station would?
?
just my 1 penny worth...
?
73 de andy g0sfj
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:08:01 -0400
From: Ken Ernandes <n2wwd@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Paul Williamson <kb5mu@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: AMSAT-BB <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Geostationary Satellites
Message-ID: <7B499CA3-E9CF-4F27-A5E3-1F4625E3C3FA@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Paul -
Your final suggestion is something that is workable. Placing a satellite
say 200 km below GEO would result in the satellite drifting about 10 minutes
per day or about 2.5 degrees per day. This would result in a cycle that
repeats about every 144 days (or about 2.5 times per year), relative to a
ground-based observer. I'd need to see if 200 km is safe or if that might
need to be increased. An increase would correspondingly increase the drift
rate.
As I said, that could be workable for an amateur satellite, but before the
calls go out for this being AMSAT's next project we need to understand what
we'd need to do, and what you'd actually be getting.
To get to such an orbit from a GTO would require about 950 m/sec of delta-V
to raise perigee up and establish a nearly circular orbit, slightly below
GEO. If the propulsion system had 90% efficiency and we had a bi-propellant
system with a 285 sec specific impulse (Isp), the propellant mass would be
about 31.5% of the total spacecraft launch mass. That is if we are willing
to also accept the inclination that the launch booster dropped us off in. I
suspect we would accept the booster's inclination for reasons that we'll see.
Now I'd like to give a quick outline of the disturbing forces at GEO, since
out spacecraft would experience similar effects.
I'll start with what's commonly called Earth triaxiality. Many of us know
the Earth bulges at the equator. So the first of the three axes is the
Earth's rotational axis. But the equator is not perfectly circular. The
equator itself has its own ellipsoidal shape, leading to two additional
gravitational axes in the equatorial plane. The result is that satellites
on the GEO belt will tend to drift east or west (depending on location).
There are four equilibrium points, two of which are stable (about 75-deg E
and 105-deg E) and two of which are not stable (about 12-deg W and 162-deg
E). The unstable points are the demarcations in which you will drift either
east or west depending on which side of the that point you're located. The
stable points are the graveyards where all the dead satellites that haven't
been boosted out of the GEO belt will collect. The drift rate varies and is
lowest near the equilibrium points and greatest at the mid-points between
the equilibrium p!
oints. Given the case of a sub-GEO orbit, the drift due to triaxiality is
of little consequence since the drift due to thee altitude difference is far
greater and triaxiality would be reduced to a secondary effect. It was
provided here for understanding of what we would need to deal with if we
wanted to hold at GEO and not collide with out neighbors.
A very significant effect results from the gravitational pulls on the
satellite by the Sun and Moon. (To be completely accurate, this is the
difference between the pulls on the satellite and the Earth by these
bodies.) This causes the inclination to cycle between 0 and approximately
15-deg over a period of about 53 years. Anybody familiar knows that
inclination change maneuvers require a lot of propellant. Thus, I believe
we would accept this slowly-changing inclination and realize that our
antennas would need to adjust slowly over the course of the day in what is
typically a figure-8 pattern. Depending on your latitude, there may be
periods when the satellite dips below your horizon.
A final effect to be considered is Solar Radiation Pressure. The impact
pressure from the Sun's photons impart momentum on the spacecraft, which in
turn causes a slight change in velocity. The main effect is a change to the
orbital eccentricity. For GEO satellites, eccentricity is manifest mainly
by an east/west oscillation over the course of a day. The larger the
eccentricity, the greater the amplitude of the oscillation. At first blush
this may seem like an insignificant effect for out sub-GEO for the same
reasons as we became unconcerned about triaxiality effects. But
eccentricity also equates to changes in altitude - precisely what we were
using as our guard against colliding with satellites in the GEO belt. So
the long-term effects would need to be considered when choosing what we
consider to be a safe separation from thee GEO belt.
I hope this is somehow helpful in understanding what AMSAT would really be
up against if it wanted to have an independent GEO satellite or consider a
sub-GEO drifting orbit.
73, Ken Ernandes N2WWD
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Paul Williamson <kb5mu@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2011, at 3:31 AM, Ken Ernandes wrote:
>> For those believing in the large space, small satellite theory, the risk
of collision is more real than one might think.
>
> It must be, since I would think the risk of collision is so tiny as to be
effectively negligible. If we position our satellite halfway between two of
those commercial "slots", we have a huge buffer on either side. Now I
realize that just measuring distances doesn't capture the whole story, and
that orbital dynamics can be non-intuitive, but it boggles the mind that
objects spaced that far apart can't be kept from colliding without
extraordinary measures.
>
> I would say that I'd like to see the analysis to back up the worry, but I
doubt I'd understand it. You would, though, so I can only ask whether you
have seen the actual analysis and found it compelling.
>
> Is there no clever trick of orbit design that can be used to avoid
collision? We can afford bigger position errors than the commercial guys
can, because we have smaller ground station antennas and no problem with
interference crowding. We can even tolerate some long-term motion, since we
can certainly accept an occasional adjustment to each ground station.
Perhaps these extra freedoms would make it possible to design an orbit
that's close enough to geosynchronous for our purposes, but far enough from
the commercial orbits to be safe?
>
> 73 -Paul
> kb5mu@xxxxx.xxx
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:08:53 +0100 (BST)
From: "Trevor ." <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: KickSat - a personal spacecraft of your own in
space
Message-ID:
<1318360133.3182.YahooMailClassic@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hi Zac,
I wish you well with the project it's a great idea.
I'd like to clarify the number of sprites that will be carried on the first
1U CubeSat. The website says:
"KickSat is a CubeSat - a standardized small satellite that we can easily
launch. It is designed to carry hundreds or even thousands of Sprites into
space and deploy them in low Earth orbit."
Now looking at the picture showing the size of the boards for the initial
deployment you aren't going to get 100's into a 1U CubeSat. How many will be
deployed ?
I gather the Sprites have a very short lifetime, just days rather than months.
Can you clarify the power level that will be used. Is it 10 milliwatts or
lower ? and is that power only available when the Sprite's solar panels are
illuminated ?
73 Trevor M5AKA
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:09:40 -0400
From: "Dave Marthouse" <dmarthouse@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "Bob Bruninga" <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Geostationary Satellites
Message-ID: <001101cc8849$5543d240$0300a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Question, what is the closest spacing for geo satellites to share the same
slot? Is this theoretically practical and or possible?
Dave Marthouse N2AAM
dmarthouse@xxxxx.xxx
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:27:04 -0400
From: "Dave Marthouse" <dmarthouse@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "Ken Ernandes" <n2wwd@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Geostationary Satellites
Message-ID: <001b01cc884b$c35a46e0$0300a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
How about a high altitude drifter above the geo belt? In fact wasn't that
talked about by a few amsat people in the early 80's. I seem to remember
hearing it discussed by the late Rip WA2LQQ on the 75 meter Amsat net back
in the day.
Dave Marthouse N2AAM
dmarthouse@xxxxx.xxx
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:49:10 -0500
From: "Howard Kowall" <hkowall@xxxx.xx>
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] SatPc32 kepler Data
Message-ID: <001a01cc884e$d8fb8290$6a01a8c0@xxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello all
I have an older laptop that has no internet connection,I run Satpc32 on my
main computer that has internet connection and I am able to update the
kepler data.I want to use the kepler data from my main computer,and copy it
to my laptop via USB flash drive.I cant seem to find the kepler folder in
the SatPc32 folder.Has anyone one shared the kepler data.
Thanks to all who read and reply in advance
Howard
VE4ISP
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:27:53 +0100
From: Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp@xxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Geostationary Satellites
Message-ID: <20111011212753.d342332c.gordonjcp@xxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:08:01 -0400
Ken Ernandes <n2wwd@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
<snipped>
> I hope this is somehow helpful in understanding what AMSAT would really be
up against if it wanted to have an independent GEO satellite or consider a
sub-GEO drifting orbit.
Thank you Ken, for the rocket scientist's take on it ;-)
It's refreshing to hear someone who actually has sat down and done the maths
comment on how easy or hard it would be to put a satellite into a high orbit.
--
Gordon JC Pearce MM0YEQ <gordonjcp@xxxx.xxx>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:38:09 -0400
From: Dee <morsesat@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "'Daniel Schultz'" <n8fgv@xxx.xxx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Geostationary Satellites-HEO MEO
Message-ID: <002001cc8855$b099aa00$11ccfe00$@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
All,
As most of you know me, I am one of the voices in the crowd
within satellite circles and have been accused of having my
own agenda. I am a fixture at many hamfests here in the New
Jersey Area and wherever I can present to the Amateur
community the aspects of satellite activity and promote
AMSAT's proliferation. I give many talks and dog and pony
shows to various clubs. My motto is "I work for donations!"
I am glad this thread was ongoing since I come across this
type of thinking all the time. It's a good discussion since
AMSAT membership is declining and Satellite enthusiasm is
dwindling, so I read.
While this area of insuring plans for HEO and MEO birds is one
of my pet projects, AMSAT itself has re-addressed itself to
LEO activities because of financial reaches that present
launches are out of the normal (?) abilities of AMSAT to
obtain. My many unscientific polls as to why hams are not
rejoining AMSAT nor assisting future funding shows that they
think we have to put up HEO or MEO birds to attract them back
into the fold. Of course this doesn't make sense and it
doesn't add to our present coffers to even think about these
type of birds. Yes, it costs money to do these things.
In the past, there were negotiations behind the scenes with a
GEO-Sync satellite company to add our payload to one of these
birds. Company was sold, contacts were lost and so went that
avenue. As with an AO-40 type satellite, we had numerous
items made by our supporting volunteers and many, many, many
volunteer hours to see that satellite came to fruition.
Volunteers even gave up precious vacation time to work on this
project. A minimal cost launch by Arianne certainly provided
a great opportunity. Some of our people went by the wayside
since then and we lost engineering staff to fall back on.
As Dan, N8FGV, points out to us all is that our dreams are
still there. We need to reactivate those spirits as he
indicates. One person stated, "I am willing to ante up
$4000-I need to convince 4,999 of my friends to do the same."
We are all Amateurs in this satellite area and as pioneers in
Ham Radio, we must reinvent ourselves to continue to be
prominent in building sats with real actual launches rooted
out where we can. We have dedicated people now in active
building projects for slots available for launch. My hat is
off to them and I will always support their efforts. Having
functioning packages on the ready is a big plus- Look at
ARISsat-1 and that was a super job by "OUR" staff to step up
and act before the deadline. (We don't need no stinkin' UHF
antenna!) (OOPS?)
Dan provides us with answers to all these questions of why and
why not. Read his input as well and I think this thread needs
the answer of how much is the Amateur community willing to
contribute to keep these higher orbiting satellite ideas
alive. Anyone have a "RICH" uncle to donate something to this
superfund? I think that we need a spark - incentive - or a
benefactor to step up to get us on the launch pad at the right
spot. Lottery tickets seem to be the American dream (HI, HI).
Please feel free to "thank" our many sincere volunteers that
keep publications coming, transponders appearing, protecting
frequency allocations, monitoring rule proposals, Symposiums
happening and informational updates accurate.
73,
Dee, NB2F
NJ AMSAT Coordinator
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx
[mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On Behalf Of Daniel
Schultz
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:03 AM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Geostationary Satellites
It is true that a Geo bird would only cover 1/3 of the Earth,
but it would ALWAYS be there, with no need for antenna rotors
or keps or a computer for tracking. It would be like picking
up a telephone. It would be wonderful for emergency service in
a disaster area. It could provide high speed digital
communications on the amateur microwave bands in places where
the internet is not available.
Geosynchronous orbit slots are allocated by transponder
frequency. On the amateur radio bands we are free to locate a
satellite anywhere we can get to because we don't share our
frequencies with commercial transponders.
The reason we don't have any high altitude satellites is all
about the money.
We amateurs created the small satellite business. Back in the
old days the big boys laughed at our cute little toy
satellites, but they did allow us to bolt them to a launch
vehicle for free or for very low cost. The experts were
certain that our homebrew satellites wouldn't last a week
without expensive mil-spec electronic components. We amateurs
proved that small satellites were useful and thus created a
market that we are now priced out of. The launches that used
to be free can now be sold to paying customers for millions of
dollars. Many of the companies in the small satellite business
were founded by Amsat alumni.
We amateurs are a non-commercial service, by law, with no
product or service that we can sell to raise the $10 million
that we would need to buy the sort of launch that we once got
for very cheap. We cannot participate in the market economy
because the law prohibits us from making money from our
activity, which puts us at a huge disadvantage in competing
for launches against those satellite owners who can make
money. If future access to space is going to be limited to
those with a good business plan then we might as well pack it
in as satellite builders. The educational-industrial complex
has no place for "amateurs" working alone in their basements
and garages without any sort of formal academic plan and no
supervision by management.
Nobody in the commercial or government world cares if we can
talk to Japan or Europe on amateur satellites or collect rare
grid squares. It is all about education, which I am all in
favor of except that I question if there really is such a
crying shortage of engineers in the world. The students
building their little Cubesats are going to find out someday
that working for Lockheed Martin or Boeing or NASA is a far,
far different world than their experience in building
Cubesats.
The Cubesats are a useless diversion but are popular with the
powers that be because they allow young college students to
build a satellite and deliver it to the launch pad. They are
too small to carry the type of payload that we need to do
effective communications in a high altitude orbit. The
students and their sponsors don't care if the satellite
actually works on orbit because they will have graduated by
the time it is launched. They recognize that the world wide
network of hams is a valuable resource for tracking and
telemetry collection, but they use amateur radio frequencies
without giving back anything to support the basis and purpose
of amateur radio.
If we are ever again going to have high altitude satellites
for world wide DX and supporting high rate digital
communications on our amateur microwave bands we will need to
find clever ways to get larger satellites such as Eagle into
higher orbits.
We also screwed up with the failure of AO-40. We could have
had 10,000 or more Amsat members right now if that satellite
had worked as designed. Even if we could raise the bucks to
build another one, there is no chance of getting another
Ariane 5 launch. Amsat-DL has not been able to find any launch
for the smaller Phase 3E satellite for any amount of money
that we can think about paying.
The way we did things two decades ago is not how we are going
to do things now. Maybe we will never again have an
Amsat-designed and built satellite but perhaps we can place a
transponder on someone else's satellite in return for some
sort of added value to them. There is money available for
education support, maybe we can get some of it if we appeal to
the right people. Maybe we can carry science experiments for
NASA or some other agency if we provide operations support
with telemetry and command. Maybe we can tap the same funding
sources that the Google lunar competitors are getting. I don't
have the answers, except that we will need to be just as
clever as our predecessors were 50 years ago if we are ever
going to have high altitude, high performance amateur
satellites in our future.
Dan Schultz, N8FGV
_______________________________________________
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: 9
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:41:42 -0500
From: Joe <nss@xxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Geostationary Satellites
Message-ID: <4E94AA06.1080004@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
How hard (Energy) budget is it to have that giant elliptical orbit, I
can't remember what bird had it, but it was an orbit named like moylina
or something like that where the perigee was very low but the apogee
was like WAY out there giving passes that were extremely long.
Joe WB9SBD
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 10/11/2011 3:27 PM, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:08:01 -0400
> Ken Ernandes<n2wwd@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>> I hope this is somehow helpful in understanding what AMSAT would really
be up against if it wanted to have an independent GEO satellite or consider
a sub-GEO drifting orbit.
> Thank you Ken, for the rocket scientist's take on it ;-)
>
> It's refreshing to hear someone who actually has sat down and done the
maths comment on how easy or hard it would be to put a satellite into a high
orbit.
>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:50:49 -0400
From: Dee <morsesat@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "'Howard Kowall'" <hkowall@xxxx.xx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SatPc32 kepler Data
Message-ID: <002101cc8857$756027f0$602077d0$@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Howard,
I was curious since I seem to remember these as you do.
I looked at the download screen and it points to:
C:\users\name of user\appdata\roaming\satpc32\kepler\
My user name happens to be "DEE"
Hope you find it.
73,
Dee, NB2F
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx
[mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On Behalf Of Howard Kowall
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 3:49 PM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] SatPc32 kepler Data
Hello all
I have an older laptop that has no internet connection,I run
Satpc32 on my main computer that has internet connection and I
am able to update the kepler data.I want to use the kepler
data from my main computer,and copy it to my laptop via USB
flash drive.I cant seem to find the kepler folder in the
SatPc32 folder.Has anyone one shared the kepler data.
Thanks to all who read and reply in advance Howard VE4ISP
_______________________________________________
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: 11
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:52:11 -0400
From: "Mark L. Hammond" <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "Howard Kowall" <hkowall@xxxx.xx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SatPc32 kepler Data
Message-ID: <jYsB1h00C4ltuWb05YsB7M@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Howard,
This depends on your OS and the version of SatPC32. On more current
versions of both software and OS, the folders are HIDDEN by default, so you
to make sure you have can see all files (it's Windows Folders option).
It's a tad annoying...so get those files unhidden.
On a Windows7 system using SatPC32 12.8a, the files are here (where username
is the name of the user account in Win7).
C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\SatPC32\Kepler
(In the SatPC32 window where you select the keps files---you can see the
path at the bottom of the window...)
Hope that helps :)
73,
Mark N8MH
At 02:49 PM 10/11/2011 -0500, Howard Kowall wrote:
>Hello all
>I have an older laptop that has no internet connection,I run Satpc32 on my
main computer that has internet connection and I am able to update the
kepler data.I want to use the kepler data from my main computer,and copy it
to my laptop via USB flash drive.I cant seem to find the kepler folder in
the SatPc32 folder.Has anyone one shared the kepler data.
>Thanks to all who read and reply in advance
>Howard
>VE4ISP
>_______________________________________________
>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: 12
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Henry <ka3hsw@xxx.xxx>
To: Howard Kowall <hkowall@xxxx.xx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SatPc32 kepler Data
Message-ID: <1318366374.59660.YahooMailRC@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I'm guessing you're running XP on that computer? If so, the kepler folder is
now (v12.8) located at C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Application
Data\SatPC32\Kepler where "Owner" is the profile name you sign on with.
George, KA3HSW
----- Original Message ----
> From: Howard Kowall <hkowall@xxxx.xx>
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Sent: Tue, October 11, 2011 2:49:10 PM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] SatPc32 kepler Data
>
> Hello all
> I have an older laptop that has no internet connection,I run Satpc32 on my
>main computer that has internet connection and I am able to update the
kepler
>data.I want to use the kepler data from my main computer,and copy it to my
>laptop via USB flash drive.I cant seem to find the kepler folder in the
>SatPc32 folder.Has anyone one shared the kepler data.
> Thanks to all who read and reply in advance
> Howard
> VE4ISP
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:20:51 +0100 (BST)
From: "Trevor ." <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Geostationary Satellites
Message-ID:
<1318368051.8664.YahooMailClassic@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
--- On Tue, 11/10/11, Joe <nss@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> How hard (Energy) budget is it to have that giant elliptical orbit,?
> I can't remember what bird had it,? but it was an orbit named like
> moylina or something like that? where the perigee was very low
> but the apogee was like WAY out there giving passes that were
> extremely long.
It's a great orbit, AO-40 was aiming for it.
Bottom line is cost - $10-15 million for launch to Geo transfer orbit and
then costs of incorporating and controlling a motor on the sat to get it to
Moylina.
You should be able to build the sat for a million or so - it's the launch
costs that are the killer.
73 Trevor M5AKA
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:25:14 -0400
From: Ken Ernandes <n2wwd@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Joe <nss@xxx.xxx>
Cc: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Geostationary Satellites
Message-ID: <317D3F00-E649-4410-92C9-847C2E2F2FB5@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
What you're describing is the AMSAT Phase 3 paradigm which IMHO is still the
most viable way to go.
I would never say never, but we (AMSAT) haven't had great success with
propulsion systems in our amateur satellites. That is why I'd like to have
more experience with successful propulsion events in Molniya-like orbits
before I'd recommend attempting maintaining a GEO orbit.
73, Ken N2WWD
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 11, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Joe <nss@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> How hard (Energy) budget is it to have that giant elliptical orbit, I
can't remember what bird had it, but it was an orbit named like moylina or
something like that where the perigee was very low but the apogee was like
WAY out there giving passes that were extremely long.
>
> Joe WB9SBD
>
> The Original Rolling Ball Clock
> Idle Tyme
> Idle-Tyme.com
> http://www.idle-tyme.com
>
> On 10/11/2011 3:27 PM, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:08:01 -0400
>> Ken Ernandes<n2wwd@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>>> I hope this is somehow helpful in understanding what AMSAT would really
be up against if it wanted to have an independent GEO satellite or consider
a sub-GEO drifting orbit.
>> Thank you Ken, for the rocket scientist's take on it ;-)
>>
>> It's refreshing to hear someone who actually has sat down and done the
maths comment on how easy or hard it would be to put a satellite into a high
orbit.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 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 6, Issue 564
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
