| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 25.09.12 15:44l 833 Lines 34621 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB7317
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V7 317
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<ON4HU<CX2SA
Sent: 120925/1339Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SA #:2113 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB7317
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Need your support to track F-1 CubeSat (John Spasojevich)
2. Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7, Issue 312)
(Andrew Glasbrenner)
3. Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7, Issue 312)
(Daniel Schultz)
4. Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7, Issue 312)
(R Oler)
5. Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7, Issue 312)
(R Oler)
6. Re: Launch Costs (Barry Baines)
7. path to HEO (Nick Pugh)
8. Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7, Issue 312)
(Trevor .)
9. Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7, Issue 312)
(Trevor .)
10. Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7, Issue 312)
(John Floyd)
11. battery recomendation for cube (Nick Pugh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:54:15 -0500
From: John Spasojevich <johnag9d@xxxxx.xxx>
To: Gus 8P6SM <8p6sm@xxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Need your support to track F-1 CubeSat
Message-ID:
<CA+qbou5M7JNVFb-PebkOgjA5s4USq=8aWYu47Gk==FYhx2wpLg@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I like going round and round in circles as much as the next guy. Now we
seem to be getting to the crux of the issue. Perhaps it's just the feeling
I get from reading the messages, predominantly from those across the pond
from the USA. It seems that the bashing and complaining is mostly directed
at AMSAT-NA as if everyone expects the US version of AMSAT to fund, build
and launch everything. There is AMSAT-UK, -DL, -Italia, - India, - South
Africa, -China (CAMSAT) and Brazil. I'm sure I missed a few. So rather than
expect -NA to do it all perhaps those AMSAT organizations not held under
the thumb of ITAR ( or maybe that are too ) should band together, like the
international partners of the ISS have and build one giant bird for all of
us.
John, AG9D
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Gus 8P6SM <8p6sm@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 08:07 PM, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
>
>> As it turns out there IS no launch fund for any HEO satellite for me to
>>> contribute to.
>>>
>>
>> Incorrect.
>>
>>
http://www.amsat-dl.org/index.**php/spendendonations-topmenu-**125<http://www.
amsat-dl.org/index.php/spendendonations-topmenu-125>
>>
>> I've given to AMSAT-NA, -DL, and -UK, and am members of -NA and -UK. I'd
>> be a member of -DL, but my wife gets tired of me asking what this and
>> that means in Deutsch.
>>
>> 73, Drew KO4MA
>>
>
> I will admit, I was speaking about AMSAT-NA specifically, but failed to
> say so. I have also hesitated to join AMSAT-DL simply because I can't
> understand the language. I've previously been a member of AMSAT-NA and
> AMSAT-UK.
>
> I am not averse to rejoining AMSAT-NA (because NA is closer to me than UK)
> but frankly, I am not convinced that the policies being followed will
> result in more/better/any satellites that I can actually use. As has been
> pointed out here very recently, the new AMSAT-NA mission statement does not
> even mention the word "communications".
>
>
> --
> 73, de Gus 8P6SM
> The Easternmost Isle
> ______________________________**_________________
> 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<http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo
/amsat-bb>
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:56:33 -0400
From: Andrew Glasbrenner <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: R Oler <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7,
Issue 312)
Message-ID: <FECE5E87-A0BA-492C-A835-344E8EBD094E@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
That's correct, but then again SpaceX isn't in business to give away
launches. It's a false premise.
However, the Fox project is building multiple flight units, because
occasionally 1U cubesat slots do open on short notice, and an off-the-shelf
spacecraft has a chance to fly. This isn't without cost however. As an
example, the solar cells for Fox cost about $500 each, with 12 per
spacecraft. Spare flight units also need to be tested and properly stored
and maintained. But, with the cubesat form factor flying so often, it's a
good risk. Other form factor spacecraft would require significant vehicle
dependent engineering to launch in anything other than a PPOD or variant.
73, Drew KO4MA
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 24, 2012, at 8:05 PM, R Oler <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> If AMSAT were given a "near free" launch by SpaceX or any of the other new
rocket folks there is nothing to put on the bird.
>
> The Dragon launching to the space station Oct 7th is only carring 1000
pounds there is a lot of excess lift capability...nothing to put on it
>
> Robert WB5MZO
>
>>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:40:48 -0400
From: "Daniel Schultz" <n8fgv@xxx.xxx>
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7,
Issue 312)
Message-ID: <623qiyenW3856S01.1348548048@xxxxx.xxx.xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
According to Google there are 33 teams (
http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/teams ) vying for the Google Lunar X Prize.
Where are these groups getting the money for their launch to the moon? Are any
of them "for real"? Many amateur space groups are just blowing hot air, they
have a lot of enthusiasm but little understanding of just how hard space
flight really is.
The cheap launches to HEO are gone. If we want another HEO satellite we must
think outside the box. Collaborations with other organizations will be our
ticket to space in the 21st century. What if we offer to provide the
communications system for one of these lunar missions. Provide one
transponder/telemetry/command system for the lunar vehicle and build another
one to drop off in HEO on the way to the moon. Our 50 year history of space
communications gives us more credibility than anyone else in that field. Our
experience and expertise might be welcomed by one or more of these teams.
Assuming, of course, that they are for real and have funding for a launch....
Dan Schultz N8FGV
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:05:57 -0500
From: R Oler <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7,
Issue 312)
Message-ID: <COL106-W325FBB0DC2145814C4A4D5D69D0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Drew..No it is not a false premise.
.if SpaceX is flying with "not used" mass we should at least approach them
to be able to see if we could put payloads on the vehicle..or take something
to ISS...there is mass and space, the launch on Oct 7 will only carry 1000
lbs. Also we might be able to find some space on the Falcon heavy launch.
Robert WB5MZO
CC: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
From: glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7,
Issue 312)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:56:33 -0400
To: orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx
That's correct, but then again SpaceX isn't in business to give away
launches. It's a false premise.
However, the Fox project is building multiple flight units, because
occasionally 1U cubesat slots do open on short notice, and an off-the-shelf
spacecraft has a chance to fly. This isn't without cost however. As an
example, the solar cells for Fox cost about $500 each, with 12 per
spacecraft. Spare flight units also need to be tested and properly stored
and maintained. But, with the cubesat form factor flying so often, it's a
good risk. Other form factor spacecraft would require significant vehicle
dependent engineering to launch in anything other than a PPOD or variant.
73, Drew KO4MA
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 24, 2012, at 8:05 PM, R Oler <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
If AMSAT were given a "near free" launch by SpaceX or any of the other new
rocket folks there is nothing to put on the bird.
The Dragon launching to the space station Oct 7th is only carring 1000
pounds there is a lot of excess lift capability...nothing to put on it
Robert WB5MZO
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:43:37 -0500
From: R Oler <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <kq6ea@xxxxxxx.xxx>, Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7,
Issue 312)
Message-ID: <COL106-W4266FBBB38FA68F5825BF2D69D0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
The main reason we are not going to have a AO-10 or 13 redo is that the odds
of some launch provider allowing an AO payload to have an engine on it after
AO-40 are small. IF for instance however we had had a payload on the first
real (not the boilerplate) Dragon launch...well the second stage burned to a
very nice elliptical orbit...Robert WB5MZO
> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:05:09 +0000
> From: kq6ea@xxxxxxx.xxx
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7,
Issue 312)
>
> That would be the cost to fly as a secondary payload.
>
> The bulk of the launch cost is paid by the primary payload, and that
> currently runs anywhere from 90 million to 130 million, depending on
> payload weight and desired orbit.
>
> 73, Jim KQ6EA
>
>
> On 09/24/2012 08:04 PM, Mark L. Hammond wrote:
> > At AMSAT-UK Colloquium last week, Peter said the current cost to HEO
> > for P3E or something like it is curently $10 Million (and the joke
> > was, pick your currency--it's about the same no matter what--US
> > dollar, Euros, GBP, etc.--BIG money)
> >
> > So the number holds.
> >
> > Mark N8MH
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Barry Baines <bbaines@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 7, Issue 312
> >> From: Mark Spencer <mspencer12345@xxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 13:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
> >> Just out of curiosity what would a reasonable estimate of the launch
costs be
> >> for a P3E class satellite ?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Mark Spencer
> >> VE7AFZ (long lapsed former AMSAT member (: )
> >> Mark:
> >>
> >> Back in 2008 when we last seriously looked at this, the cost of
launching a satellite into a Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) of the
size/weight of Eagle or P3-E was $8 million. Today that figure is more like
$10 million, though Peter, DB2OS (President of AMSAT-DL) probably has a more
accurate figure than this. Even so, the cost to launch is what makes things
prohibitively expensive. Raising that kind of money (plus the cost of the
spacecraft itself) is not viewed as viable given the results of our past
fund raising efforts.
> >>
> >> The last HEO launch was for P3-D/AO-40. Please keep in mind that the
money that was passed through AMSAT-NA totaled over $2 Million for
P3-D/AO-40, from 1993-2000 (seven years) with considerable help from
individual donors, ARRL matching donor program, AMSAT-UK, etc. Other
organizations, such as AMSAT-DL and JAMSAT also had their own fundraising
efforts as well in support of those aspects of the program that they were
handling. AMSAT also developed the SBS (Specific Bearing Structure) as
part of P3-D program that became the "frame" that housed P3-D on the launch
vehicle. At that time, we believe we had pretty much "maxed out" what might
be raised from within the amateur radio community in North America.
Unfortunately, that considerable fundraising effort wouldn't get us 20% of
the current launch costs. Clearly, we must expand beyond the amateur
radio community to raise funds of this magnitude, but to do so requires both
a non-amateur radio "vision" to what a HE!
O !
> s!
> > at!
> >> ellite would provide (e.g. excite non-amateurs) as well as a "Case
for Support" that would attract major donors, such as foundations. To date,
we have not been able to put together a plan that would meet these
expectations.
> >>
> >> Needless-to-say, given today's costs, the launch economics is the major
inhibitor, and not necessarily the cost of building the satellite itself
(though that also costs "real money" depending upon size and features and
whether major systems, such as propulsion are donated as was the case with
P3-D).
> >>
> >> So, let's look deeper into the launch cost environment to determine
what AMSAT might be able to "afford" under current circumstances:
> >>
> >> The cost to launch a "microsat" (e.g. a 9" x 9" x 9" structure such as
AO-51) was estimated in 2008 to be around $350,000.00. That is why we opted
for a 1u cubesat (4" x 4" x 4") back in 2008 as replacement satellite for
AO-51-- we couldn't afford the launch of a microsat given our finances at
the time and the concern about being able to raise the funds to pay for a
launch that would likely increase in cost of time.
> >>
> >> To put this further in perspective, as I recall, back in 2008 the cost
to launch a 1u cubesat was around $60-80K to place a cubesat in LEO. The
current cost is about $120K for 1 Kg of mass to LEO (a cubesat is 1.1 Kg).
The doubling of launch cost is due in part to the significant interest in
cubesats by the US Government, aerospace firms (Boeing, for example), and
others who have "real money" to place cubesat payloads in LEO. Clearly, as
Tony, AA2TX (AMSAT's VP-Engineering) pointed out to me, the cubesat has
evolved from a university "novelty" to a standard spacecraft specification.
This cost increase is the reason why AMSAT applied for an ELaNA grant in
2011 (we were selected in 2012) and where we will continue to apply for
ELaNA grants in order to be able to "afford" launches. Clearly, it make
much more sense to focus on dollars donated to AMSAT for spacecraft
development rather than launches if we can get "others" to support our
launch costs.
> >>
> >> BTW, "Aviation Week & Space Technology Magazine" had a series of
articles in the 30 JUL 12 issue ("Small Satellites: Doing More with Less")
which highlights this evolution, including cubesats, such as TechEdSat that
will be the first US cubesat to be deployed from the ISS using the same
deployment scheme (JEM-SSOD or Small Satellite Orbital Deployer) as the
Vietnamese student F-1 cubesat that will be deployed this week.
Information about TechEdSat may be found here:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/TechEdSat.html
> >>
> >> Coupled with the launch costs is the "justification" for launches.
NASA and others (such as the National Science Foundation) will support
launch opportunities if the proposal meets THEIR strategic goals.
Consequently, the most effective way to "hitch a ride" is to put something
in an amateur radio space frame that meets their expectations, such as a
scientific/educational payload and/or provide "educational outreach." For
example:
> >>
> >> 1. ARISSat-1/Kedr deployed by RSC/Energia from the ISS in August 2011
with a student scientific payload developed by Kursk State University.
AMSAT developed ground based software to capture telemetry from both the
satellite and the payload, with amateurs forwarding captured data to a
central server. ARISSat-1/Kedr was considered to be a "prototype" for
deploying student payloads. Education outreach was also part of our efforts
with ARISSat-1, where, for example, telemetry data is available for student
analysis. Whether there are future opportunities for more ARISSat
deployments remains to be seen.
> >>
> >> 2. AMSAT-UK developed FunCube (funcube.org.uk) under the model where
educational outreach is the justification (to be launched in 2013). The
satellite has received financial support from the Radio Communications
Foundation and is being developed in collaboration with ISIS-Innovative
Solutions in Space BV (a Dutch small satellite company that is a spin-off
from Delft University of Technology). AMSAT-UK is developing ground-based
software with an easy-to-use receiver (FunCube Dongle developed by Howard
Long, G6LVB) to encourage use of the satellite in the classroom.
> >>
> >> 3. FOX-1 will have a student scientific payload (MEMS Gyro originally
developed by Penn State-Erie students) as justification for NASA to pay for
our launch under the ELaNA grant. Ground-based software for capture of
satellite telemetry and payload data is also being developed using a central
server for data to be forwarded. AMSAT is also focused on creating
education outreach materials focused on Fox-1 that will be appropriate for
future missions as well.
> >>
> >> 4. The appointment of Mark Hammond, N8MH as AMSAT's VP-Educational
Relations and the subsequent work that he is doing to develop relationships
with outside organizations (including ARRL and NASA Education), develop an
"educational outreach" capability in support of AMSAT's scientific and
education mission, and work to foster support of "STEM" (Science,
Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) as part of more traditional
engineering work on space craft is in recognition of the fact that we are
dependent upon the support of other organizations to be able to afford to
fly. "Education outreach" is the new "cost" (one that AMSAT can hopefully
"afford") that we must bear to keep amateur radio in space.
> >>
> >> Clearly, it is launch costs that is driving much of what AMSAT can
afford to accomplish. In addition, we must recognize that those that pay
for the launch will only do so if the satellite provides a benefit that
meets their goals/expectations. Clearly, future opportunities for placing
amateur radio transponders in HEO will be dependent upon finding partners
who have a need to place THEIR payload(s) in those orbits AND have the major
funding to support the launch. In essence, that is what AMSAT-DL attempted
to do by persuading the German government to fund P3-E as part of a larger
mission to Mars. Unfortunately, their attempts did not pan out.
> >>
> >> BTW, we'd be happy to accept your $44.00 to renew your AMSAT
membership; you can renew online at www.amsat.org... ;-)
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >>
> >> Barry Baines, WD4ASW
> >> President-AMSAT
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:14:56 -0400
From: Barry Baines <bbaines@xxx.xxx>
To: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Launch Costs
Message-ID: <268052CA-A6BE-4E25-B527-8A3F37E2D8B4@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
e: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7,Issue 312)
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7,Issue
312)
From: Gus 8P6SM <8p6sm@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:36:44 -0400
Barry, I truly welcome the launch of 1.) ARISSat-1, 2.) FunCube and also
3.) FOX-1. Can you give me an idea when 4.) Mark Hammond, N8MH will be
launched, and what amateur capability he will host while in orbit? :-)
Jokes aside, I am happy to see ham satellites carry educational
packages. But I want to see amateur packages as well (as per 1, 2 and 3
above). Satellites that carry ONLY educational packages and NO ham
packages are of no particular interest to me, since I am a ham and not a
student. What concerns me is this: As more satellites carry
education-only packages, the harder it becomes to 'sell' the idea that
an amateur package should be included. How will you answer when someone
says "The last ten satellites carried no amateur package. Why should we?"
--
73, de Gus 8P6SM
The Easternmost Isle
Gus:
Mark, N8MH is "launching" our education outreach initiatives; I must say
the significant work that he has done to date has been both rewarding and
refreshing... ;-) However, he will be the first to tell you that there is
much work to be done and he needs help from those who are interested in
developing our education outreach capabilities.
One of the reasons why AMSAT-NA is building Fox-1 is to create a reliable RF
package capable of both amateur radio repeater capability as well as provide
a telemetry downlink for spacecraft and payload data. The design provides
both a sub-audible, low data rate telemetry package that can be used at the
same time as the FM repeater is in operation as well as a 9600-baud
telemetry dowmlink that could only be used when the FM repeater is not in
service. The Fox-1 student payload will do fine with the low data rate
telemetry, so we can operate both the FM repeater and the provide data at
the same time. At some point, however, we will activate the 9600-baud
telemetry package as a "proof of concept" to show what it can do.
Indeed, under the Fox-1 program, we're building four spacecraft (flight
unit, flight backup and two spares that will not have solar panels). Under
this approach, AMSAT will be able to respond to future flight opportunities
by having "off the shelf" hardware readily available (e.g. just add the
scientific payload and solar panels).
Our intention is that once the Fox-1 design successfully demonstrates its
capabilities, to make the design "public domain." That is, we will publish
in the AMSAT JOURNAL and/or the "AMSAT Symposium Proceedings" the specifics
on the design so that anyone can use it. Under ITAR, AMSAT may publish such
technical materials (e.g. physically print to qualify as "publication";
placement in an electronic format such as a website is NOT considered by the
US Government to be placement in the public domain). What kills us with
ITAR is that we cannot share technical information with foreign nationals
until AFTER the material is placed in the public domain. Consequently, we
cannot collaborate in the development of new technology with other AMSAT
organizations, for example, but we can share the fruits of our labor once
placed in the public domain.
Now, why would AMSAT-NA do this? We are well aware that university
professors who are interested in flying their experiments/payloads are not
"RF Engineers." The success rate of university cubesat satellite programs
once in orbit has been disappointing, in part because their cubesats have
not been well designed/built from an RF perspective. So, if AMSAT were to
offer a space-proven RF design that will support their payloads, our
presumption is that universities and others would hopefully adopt our design
either by partnering with AMSAT or by adopting our design and building the
satellite themselves. Now, given that the RF design already incorporates an
amateur radio receiver/transmitter, our expectation is that once their
payload/experiment is concluded and the university is no longer interested
in their payload, that cubesat becomes an amateur radio satellite.
Consequently, over time it is not just AMSAT that would construct an amateur
radio satellite, but anyone using!
our design to fulfill their scientific mission.
Along with adopting a more reliable RF design, an additional advantage (at
least from a US perspective) is that extending the life of a satellite also
helps in dealing with an issue of "debris mitigation." A US-based satellite
with a transmitter must be approved by the FCC (Federal Communications
Commission) and one of the questions being asked these days in the
application for operating from space is how the satellite developer will
deal with debris mitigation for that particular payload once the "useful
life" of that satellite is met. If the satellite's useful life can be
significantly extended by converting it to a full time amateur radio
satellite, then clearly that helps to mitigate the issue of "debris
mitigation." This is a significant advantage to those who are scratching
their heads trying to justify placement of a satellite in an orbit with a 25
year life (due to the need of the payload) and a one year science mission.
In essence we have the potential of fulfilling two significant achievements:
1. Enhancing the design of cubesats so that these satellite don't
immediately become 'space junk' by providing a robust, space-proven RF
package that will meet the legitimate needs of payload developers; and
2. Expanding the field of amateur radio satellite construction by
incorporating into the basic RF design an amateur radio capability that
would be placed in operation at some point after launch--either while the
payload is in service (using the low data rate scheme) or after the payload
is expended and the subsequent cubesat realignment as an amateur radio
satellite (Perhaps one year after launch).
Time will tell as to how this approach may translate into future amateur
radio satellites, though we believe this is a "win-win" approach. The key
here is that AMSAT is actively pursuing ways to place amateur radio assets
in orbit through a cooperative arrangement built on what we do best
(building small satellites with good RF capabilities) and partnering with
others who have a need to fly their "widget" (scientific payload). This
could include a direct partnership or by having the "others" take advantage
of the development work performed by AMSAT and incorporating our design into
the 'their' spacecraft. This "out-of-the-box" thinking is one example of how
we're trying to find ways to keep amateur radio in space.
Regards,
Barry
WD4ASW
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:46:48 -0500
From: "Nick Pugh" <quadpugh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] path to HEO
Message-ID: <08d001cd9b02$af3d4340$0db7c9c0$@xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Amsaters
The AMSAT leadership has it right. Placing the Fox design in the public
domain is a fantastic idea. You can't catch a fish without putting a baited
line in the water.
The next step HEO one path is find an aero student who will prefect a new
propulsion system. The educational types are getting large grants. The good
news for us is their expertise lies on the mechanical side not radio side.
These facts make us a natural partner. We need to be on the lookout for a
propulsion inventors who is tied into the grant process IE an educator. I
believe NASA will soon let us fly with active low risk propulsion system
but NASA is not the only countries in the launch business the Indian,
Chinese and the Europeans are there to. Our outreach need to be
international and educational institutions have a little more leeway with
ITAR. About 2/3 of technical grad students are not US citizens.
What's needed
1. A clearly stated goal---HEO
2. Dogged determination
3. Organized search
Thanks
nick ars k5qxj EM30xa 30.1 n 90.1 w
cell 337 2582527
office 337 593 8700
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:05:17 +0100 (BST)
From: "Trevor ." <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7,
Issue 312)
Message-ID:
<1348574717.21372.YahooMailClassic@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
--- On Tue, 25/9/12, Daniel Schultz <n8fgv@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> According to Google there are 33 teams vying for the Google Lunar X
> Prize. Where are these groups getting the money for their launch to
> the moon?
I'm not aware that any of the groups yet has the money to buy all the
launches each team will require.
Like many amateur space projects they are relying on funds being raised as
the project progresses.
>From what I've seen a number of groups are aiming for a CubeSat launch into
Low-Earth-Orbit and then plan to use some form of propulsion, ion etc to get
their CubeSat spacecraft to the Moon. Given the fact that such CubeSat
propulsion systems are currently unproven in space this means X-Prize Teams
will end up flying one or more likely two test CubeSats first to prove their
designs. So assuming the propulsion designs work there could be some test
CubeSats ending up in quite nice orbits.
> What if we offer to provide the communications system for one
> of these lunar missions. Provide one transponder/telemetry/command
> system for the lunar vehicle and build another one to drop off in HEO
I gather there are already radio amateurs working with some of the teams and
it's certainly a good idea for amateurs to get involved in such projects.
73 Trevor M5AKA
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:28:50 +0100 (BST)
From: "Trevor ." <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx Gus 8P6SM <8p6sm@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7,
Issue 312)
Message-ID:
<1348576130.66822.YahooMailClassic@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
--- On Tue, 25/9/12, Gus 8P6SM <8p6sm@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
> > If we look at the Kickstarter site we can see satellite projects
> > that between them have raised almost $300,000 yet the online
> > Fundraising by the projects took just 30 days.
>
> Pity we can't obtain funding by the same means.?It isn't as if we
> wouldn't be able to include most of the functionality provided by
> these satellites as part of asecondary payload.
Hi Gus,
Yes, I think by reaching out to people we can raise significant extra funds.
As you imply it's just a matter of designing a CubeSat that has an amateur
radio communications transponder, which we all want, and also has room for
other functionality that people outside the amateur community would be
prepared to sponsor. In fact I thought the AMSAT Fox project will do exactly
that.
In an earlier post you wrote:
> Would it be OK for NASA to use ham frequencies for their Mars Rover
> project,
Yes, that is exactly what has happened, "ham frequencies" are being used on
Mars. See
437 MHz - Curiosity - Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Frequencies
http://www.southgatearc.org/news/august2012/mars_reconnaissance_orbiter_freque
ncies.htm
There are no global Primary Amateur or Amateur-satellite Service allocations
above 146 MHz until you get to 24 GHz. Sadly we don't own the 435 MHz band.
73 Trevor M5AKA
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:02:27 +0000
From: John Floyd <JFloyd@xx.xxxx.xxx>
To: R Oler <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>, "glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
<glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7,
Issue 312)
Message-ID:
<D779305FD025444BB0E13FCAE75E477E530377C0@xxxxxxx.xxxx.xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Orbital is flying out of Wallops some time this fall with a "mass simulator"
in preparation for the ISS resupply. I am guessing negotiations should have
started years ago to provide some of that mass.
http://www.orbital.com/CargoResupplyServices/Missions/
________________________________________
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx on behalf of R
Oler [orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Sent: 25 September 2012 00:05
To: glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Amsat BB
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7, Issue
312)
Drew..No it is not a false premise.
.if SpaceX is flying with "not used" mass we should at least approach them
to be able to see if we could put payloads on the vehicle..or take something
to ISS...there is mass and space, the launch on Oct 7 will only carry 1000
lbs. Also we might be able to find some space on the Falcon heavy launch.
Robert WB5MZO
CC: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
From: glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7,
Issue 312)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:56:33 -0400
To: orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx
That's correct, but then again SpaceX isn't in business to give away
launches. It's a false premise.
However, the Fox project is building multiple flight units, because
occasionally 1U cubesat slots do open on short notice, and an off-the-shelf
spacecraft has a chance to fly. This isn't without cost however. As an
example, the solar cells for Fox cost about $500 each, with 12 per
spacecraft. Spare flight units also need to be tested and properly stored
and maintained. But, with the cubesat form factor flying so often, it's a
good risk. Other form factor spacecraft would require significant vehicle
dependent engineering to launch in anything other than a PPOD or variant.
73, Drew KO4MA
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 24, 2012, at 8:05 PM, R Oler <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
If AMSAT were given a "near free" launch by SpaceX or any of the other new
rocket folks there is nothing to put on the bird.
The Dragon launching to the space station Oct 7th is only carring 1000
pounds there is a lot of excess lift capability...nothing to put on it
Robert WB5MZO
_______________________________________________
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, 25 Sep 2012 08:11:02 -0500
From: "Nick Pugh" <quadpugh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] battery recomendation for cube
Message-ID: <090f01cd9b1f$3773f490$a65bddb0$@xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The battery for cube sat satellite team at the University of Louisiana has
failed the vacuum test and we are asking for recommendations of what battery
we should fly on our next mission?
Thanks
nick ARS K5QXJ EM30xa 30.1N 92.1W
Office 337 593 8700
Cell 337 258 2527
Helping UL become a world Class Engineering and Educational School
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 7, Issue 317
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
