| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 29.07.19 16:41l 930 Lines 39909 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB14287
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V14 287
Path: IZ3LSV<DB0ERF<DB0RES<DB0OVN<DB0GOS<ON0AR<OZ5BBS<CX2SA
Sent: 190729/1530Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM #:10958 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB14287
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: HEO/Elliptical [was: AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to
attract more interest and revenue] (Ev Tupis)
2. Re: AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more interest and
revenue (Daniel Schultz)
3. Re: AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more interest and
revenue (Zach Leffke)
4. Fwd: AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more interest and
revenue (KC9SGV)
5. Re: AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more interest and
revenue (KC9SGV)
6. Re: AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more interest and
revenue (Jean Marc Momple)
7. PSAT2 Commanding of transponder/camera boards (Robert Bruninga)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 11:12:13 +0000 (UTC)
From: Ev Tupis <w2ev@?????.???>
To: amsat-bb@?????.???
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] HEO/Elliptical [was: AMSAT-NA solution: DX
(HEO) to attract more interest and revenue]
Message-ID: <773840209.1445334.1564398733222@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type
goals?
>Your donation.>Give early, give often.
What needs to be donated?? Technical expertise?? Parts?? Ground
transportation?? Meeting rooms?? Negotiation skill? Political contacts??
Clean room time?? Payload space?
Everyone always thinks "money".? (As much) money isn't needed if "what money
buys" is available for negotiation, barter, or "in the store house awaiting
donation".
What are the top barriers?
Inquiringly yours,
Ev, W2EV
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:08:28 -0400
From: "Daniel Schultz" <n8fgv@???.???>
To: <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more
interest and revenue
Message-ID: <783XgCoHC2064Set.1564409308@?????.???.???.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On July 28, 2019 6:46:20 PM CDT, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>
wrote:
>What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type
goals?
>Ev, W2EV
We would all love to have another HEO satellite, however the ecosystem in
which we live today has changed a great deal since AMSAT built AO-10, AO-13
and AO-40 a couple of decades ago:
1. The launch market has become saturated with small satellites. In the
1970's, 80's and 90's, AMSAT was often the only entity that was willing to put
a satellite on top of a new untested launch vehicle. Today every university on
the planet has its own satellite project, along with more and more high
schools and even a few elementary schools. AMSAT is working with some of these
universities to carry ham radio transponders on their satellites, but the
university satellite mission is different from our mission, they just want to
throw together something fast and cheap that can launch before the students
graduate, and they don't need to get to HEO to do that. Long term reliability
is not part of their equation.
Commercial and Government entities have also discovered the value of small
satellites, and the launch market has reacted to that by charging market-based
prices for launches that AMSAT used to get for free or at highly discounted
rates. We have to compete against commercial enterprises funded by venture
capital, and because of the non-commercial nature of amateur radio, we can't
use the same business model of charging the end users to recover our costs.
NASA can and does launch small Cubesats for educational and scientific
purposes that fit into the NASA mission, but amateur radio communications by
itself does not advance the NASA mission. We need to find partners in the
educational and scientific world to get launches through this program.
Because Cubesats have dominated the satellite market, there are no more
affordable launches for satellites the size of AO-13, let alone AO-40. We are
now faced with the need to cram the functionality of an AO-13 satellite into a
3U (or possibly 6U) Cubesat. We may or we may not be able to do that, there is
a limit to the ability to cram 50 Kg of payload into a 5 Kg box. While Moore's
Law has enabled today's electronics technology to be smaller and lighter than
it was two decades ago, remember that satellites are driven by Shannon's Law,
not by Moore's Law. We need to generate electrical power and we need antenna
gain to carry out a satellite communications mission. AO-13 was a simple
spinning satellite that was big enough to accept the inefficiencies of
off-pointed solar arrays. On a Cubesat we would need to keep the smaller solar
arrays precisely aimed at the Sun and the antennas aimed at the Earth, and
this requires sophisticated three axis control systems.
2. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that came into force
about 20 years ago have placed severe restrictions on our ability to work with
foreign partners. AO-40 was built by a partnership of more than a dozen
countries all contributing parts, subsystems and money to get it done. Today
we are cut off from the rest of the world. Building a wall around the USA has
never made us safe or prosperous.
3. Orbital debris regulations now require satellite builders to prove to the
FCC that the satellite will reenter in 25 years or less. In highly inclined
elliptical orbits such as AO-13 we can possibly exploit solar and lunar
resonances that will bring down the satellite in a decade or two, but in the
lower inclination GTO launches that are more common, we would be dependent on
rocket thrust to provide the delta-V to lower the perigee. If you look at the
NORAD catalog, most of the spent rocket bodies left in GTO remain there for a
long time unless they are deliberately de-orbited.
All of these factors have lined up to make the AMSAT mission much more
difficult than it was 20 years ago. Spaceflight is hard, and if we don't have
the fortitude to meet the new challenges, than we will not be part of it in
the future. I believe that we can and we will have new HEO satellites but we
won't be doing it under the rules that we operated under in the past. If
somebody wanted to write a check for $20 million, we could buy a HEO launch to
whatever orbit we wanted, but in the absence of such support we will have to
use cleverness and guile to get it done. I have constantly reminded the
satellite professionals that it was the hams who created the secondary launch
market that they now enjoy, but I have have so far not seen much interest from
them in reciprocating that favor.
73, Dan Schultz N8FGV
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:31:17 -0400
From: Zach Leffke <zleffke@??.???>
To: amsat-bb@?????.???
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more
interest and revenue
Message-ID: <d4ee3e9e-071c-f9ed-49e4-7c1457bc165d@??.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Good summary Dan.
I have nothing major to add, but would like to make two statements:
1)? through the VT/AMSAT partnership in the past we explored
opportunities for both HEO and GEO missions.? The most 'real' of those
opportunities involved a possible GEO mission on an Air Force satellite,
with VT engineers bridging the military/ham radio sides.? HEO was a
briefer opportunity, and sadly neither of the opportunities panned out
(though technically GEO is 'on hold indefinitely'.....).? From my work
with the Hume Center at VT and the Space@?? group, I will attempt to
keep my eyes open for similar opportunities in the future, and if
something appears to have 'meat on the bone' as a target of opportunity
and potential rideshare/secondary payload, I'll bring it to AMSAT's
attention. I would encourage others to do the same if they are in a
similar position........it may be we don't pay for a HEO/GEO, but rather
an odd confluence of events makes something materialize in our
favor....and we should be ready, willing, and able to take advantage of
those situations....
2)? I also constantly remind folks (from students to gov't officials
when the opportunity presents itself) about Dan's last statement that
Ham radio made the secondary launch market. OSCAR-1 launched 4 years and
change after Sputnik-1, and I love watching eyes widen when folks
realize what that means (especially the gov't types).
-Zach, KJ4QLP
P.S.? LOVE the positive direction of this thread...
--
Research Associate
Aerospace Systems Lab
Ted & Karyn Hume Center for National Security & Technology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Work Phone: 540-231-4174
Cell Phone: 540-808-6305
On 7/29/19 10:08 AM, Daniel Schultz via AMSAT-BB wrote:
> On July 28, 2019 6:46:20 PM CDT, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>
> wrote:
>> What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type
> goals?
>> Ev, W2EV
> We would all love to have another HEO satellite, however the ecosystem in
> which we live today has changed a great deal since AMSAT built AO-10, AO-13
> and AO-40 a couple of decades ago:
>
> 1. The launch market has become saturated with small satellites. In the
> 1970's, 80's and 90's, AMSAT was often the only entity that was willing to
put
> a satellite on top of a new untested launch vehicle. Today every
university on
> the planet has its own satellite project, along with more and more high
> schools and even a few elementary schools. AMSAT is working with some of
these
> universities to carry ham radio transponders on their satellites, but the
> university satellite mission is different from our mission, they just want
to
> throw together something fast and cheap that can launch before the students
> graduate, and they don't need to get to HEO to do that. Long term
reliability
> is not part of their equation.
>
> Commercial and Government entities have also discovered the value of small
> satellites, and the launch market has reacted to that by charging
market-based
> prices for launches that AMSAT used to get for free or at highly discounted
> rates. We have to compete against commercial enterprises funded by venture
> capital, and because of the non-commercial nature of amateur radio, we can't
> use the same business model of charging the end users to recover our costs.
> NASA can and does launch small Cubesats for educational and scientific
> purposes that fit into the NASA mission, but amateur radio communications by
> itself does not advance the NASA mission. We need to find partners in the
> educational and scientific world to get launches through this program.
>
> Because Cubesats have dominated the satellite market, there are no more
> affordable launches for satellites the size of AO-13, let alone AO-40. We
are
> now faced with the need to cram the functionality of an AO-13 satellite
into a
> 3U (or possibly 6U) Cubesat. We may or we may not be able to do that,
there is
> a limit to the ability to cram 50 Kg of payload into a 5 Kg box. While
Moore's
> Law has enabled today's electronics technology to be smaller and lighter
than
> it was two decades ago, remember that satellites are driven by Shannon's
Law,
> not by Moore's Law. We need to generate electrical power and we need antenna
> gain to carry out a satellite communications mission. AO-13 was a simple
> spinning satellite that was big enough to accept the inefficiencies of
> off-pointed solar arrays. On a Cubesat we would need to keep the smaller
solar
> arrays precisely aimed at the Sun and the antennas aimed at the Earth, and
> this requires sophisticated three axis control systems.
>
> 2. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that came into force
> about 20 years ago have placed severe restrictions on our ability to work
with
> foreign partners. AO-40 was built by a partnership of more than a dozen
> countries all contributing parts, subsystems and money to get it done. Today
> we are cut off from the rest of the world. Building a wall around the USA
has
> never made us safe or prosperous.
>
> 3. Orbital debris regulations now require satellite builders to prove to the
> FCC that the satellite will reenter in 25 years or less. In highly inclined
> elliptical orbits such as AO-13 we can possibly exploit solar and lunar
> resonances that will bring down the satellite in a decade or two, but in the
> lower inclination GTO launches that are more common, we would be dependent
on
> rocket thrust to provide the delta-V to lower the perigee. If you look at
the
> NORAD catalog, most of the spent rocket bodies left in GTO remain there
for a
> long time unless they are deliberately de-orbited.
>
> All of these factors have lined up to make the AMSAT mission much more
> difficult than it was 20 years ago. Spaceflight is hard, and if we don't
have
> the fortitude to meet the new challenges, than we will not be part of it in
> the future. I believe that we can and we will have new HEO satellites but we
> won't be doing it under the rules that we operated under in the past. If
> somebody wanted to write a check for $20 million, we could buy a HEO
launch to
> whatever orbit we wanted, but in the absence of such support we will have to
> use cleverness and guile to get it done. I have constantly reminded the
> satellite professionals that it was the hams who created the secondary
launch
> market that they now enjoy, but I have have so far not seen much interest
from
> them in reciprocating that favor.
>
> 73, Dan Schultz N8FGV
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@?????.???. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:08:58 -0500
From: KC9SGV <kc9sgv@?????.???>
To: amsat-bb@?????.???
Subject: [amsat-bb] Fwd: AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more
interest and revenue
Message-ID: <12C87B16-E4AA-4EDC-B883-9AB416F910ED@?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
> From: KC9SGV <kc9sgv@?????.???>
> Date: July 29, 2019 at 10:00:55 AM CDT
> To: Zach Leffke <zleffke@??.???>
> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more
interest and revenue
>
> Excellent points and thoughts by Dan and Zach.
>
> I might just add that yes, we have ITAR and EAR, but would asking a future
South American commercial GEO communications or TV satellite effort to just
lend us a standby transponder or two, be a violation of these laws ?
> (Existing power, budget, etc.)
> We could act naive and just ask.
> Sometimes, just asking, is all that is needed.
> Especially if STEM is pushed.
>
> Bernard,
> KC9SGV
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jul 29, 2019, at 9:31 AM, Zach Leffke via AMSAT-BB
<amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>>
>> Good summary Dan.
>>
>> I have nothing major to add, but would like to make two statements:
>>
>> 1) through the VT/AMSAT partnership in the past we explored
opportunities for both HEO and GEO missions. The most 'real' of those
opportunities involved a possible GEO mission on an Air Force satellite,
with VT engineers bridging the military/ham radio sides. HEO was a briefer
opportunity, and sadly neither of the opportunities panned out (though
technically GEO is 'on hold indefinitely'.....). From my work with the Hume
Center at VT and the Space@?? group, I will attempt to keep my eyes open for
similar opportunities in the future, and if something appears to have 'meat
on the bone' as a target of opportunity and potential rideshare/secondary
payload, I'll bring it to AMSAT's attention. I would encourage others to do
the same if they are in a similar position........it may be we don't pay for
a HEO/GEO, but rather an odd confluence of events makes something
materialize in our favor....and we should be ready, willing, and able to
take advantage of those situations....
>>
>> 2) I also constantly remind folks (from students to gov't officials when
the opportunity presents itself) about Dan's last statement that Ham radio
made the secondary launch market. OSCAR-1 launched 4 years and change after
Sputnik-1, and I love watching eyes widen when folks realize what that means
(especially the gov't types).
>>
>>
>> -Zach, KJ4QLP
>>
>> P.S. LOVE the positive direction of this thread...
>>
>> --
>> Research Associate
>> Aerospace Systems Lab
>> Ted & Karyn Hume Center for National Security & Technology
>> Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
>> Work Phone: 540-231-4174
>> Cell Phone: 540-808-6305
>>
>>> On 7/29/19 10:08 AM, Daniel Schultz via AMSAT-BB wrote:
>>> On July 28, 2019 6:46:20 PM CDT, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB
<amsat-bb@?????.???>
>>> wrote:
>>>> What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type
>>> goals?
>>>> Ev, W2EV
>>> We would all love to have another HEO satellite, however the ecosystem in
>>> which we live today has changed a great deal since AMSAT built AO-10,
AO-13
>>> and AO-40 a couple of decades ago:
>>>
>>> 1. The launch market has become saturated with small satellites. In the
>>> 1970's, 80's and 90's, AMSAT was often the only entity that was willing
to put
>>> a satellite on top of a new untested launch vehicle. Today every
university on
>>> the planet has its own satellite project, along with more and more high
>>> schools and even a few elementary schools. AMSAT is working with some of
these
>>> universities to carry ham radio transponders on their satellites, but the
>>> university satellite mission is different from our mission, they just
want to
>>> throw together something fast and cheap that can launch before the
students
>>> graduate, and they don't need to get to HEO to do that. Long term
reliability
>>> is not part of their equation.
>>>
>>> Commercial and Government entities have also discovered the value of small
>>> satellites, and the launch market has reacted to that by charging
market-based
>>> prices for launches that AMSAT used to get for free or at highly
discounted
>>> rates. We have to compete against commercial enterprises funded by venture
>>> capital, and because of the non-commercial nature of amateur radio, we
can't
>>> use the same business model of charging the end users to recover our
costs.
>>> NASA can and does launch small Cubesats for educational and scientific
>>> purposes that fit into the NASA mission, but amateur radio
communications by
>>> itself does not advance the NASA mission. We need to find partners in the
>>> educational and scientific world to get launches through this program.
>>>
>>> Because Cubesats have dominated the satellite market, there are no more
>>> affordable launches for satellites the size of AO-13, let alone AO-40.
We are
>>> now faced with the need to cram the functionality of an AO-13 satellite
into a
>>> 3U (or possibly 6U) Cubesat. We may or we may not be able to do that,
there is
>>> a limit to the ability to cram 50 Kg of payload into a 5 Kg box. While
Moore's
>>> Law has enabled today's electronics technology to be smaller and lighter
than
>>> it was two decades ago, remember that satellites are driven by Shannon's
Law,
>>> not by Moore's Law. We need to generate electrical power and we need
antenna
>>> gain to carry out a satellite communications mission. AO-13 was a simple
>>> spinning satellite that was big enough to accept the inefficiencies of
>>> off-pointed solar arrays. On a Cubesat we would need to keep the smaller
solar
>>> arrays precisely aimed at the Sun and the antennas aimed at the Earth, and
>>> this requires sophisticated three axis control systems.
>>>
>>> 2. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that came into
force
>>> about 20 years ago have placed severe restrictions on our ability to
work with
>>> foreign partners. AO-40 was built by a partnership of more than a dozen
>>> countries all contributing parts, subsystems and money to get it done.
Today
>>> we are cut off from the rest of the world. Building a wall around the
USA has
>>> never made us safe or prosperous.
>>>
>>> 3. Orbital debris regulations now require satellite builders to prove to
the
>>> FCC that the satellite will reenter in 25 years or less. In highly
inclined
>>> elliptical orbits such as AO-13 we can possibly exploit solar and lunar
>>> resonances that will bring down the satellite in a decade or two, but in
the
>>> lower inclination GTO launches that are more common, we would be
dependent on
>>> rocket thrust to provide the delta-V to lower the perigee. If you look
at the
>>> NORAD catalog, most of the spent rocket bodies left in GTO remain there
for a
>>> long time unless they are deliberately de-orbited.
>>>
>>> All of these factors have lined up to make the AMSAT mission much more
>>> difficult than it was 20 years ago. Spaceflight is hard, and if we don't
have
>>> the fortitude to meet the new challenges, than we will not be part of it
in
>>> the future. I believe that we can and we will have new HEO satellites
but we
>>> won't be doing it under the rules that we operated under in the past. If
>>> somebody wanted to write a check for $20 million, we could buy a HEO
launch to
>>> whatever orbit we wanted, but in the absence of such support we will
have to
>>> use cleverness and guile to get it done. I have constantly reminded the
>>> satellite professionals that it was the hams who created the secondary
launch
>>> market that they now enjoy, but I have have so far not seen much
interest from
>>> them in reciprocating that favor.
>>>
>>> 73, Dan Schultz N8FGV
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@?????.???. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
>>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
Opinions expressed
>>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
>>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
>>> Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@?????.???. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
Opinions expressed
>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
>> Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:11:44 -0500
From: KC9SGV <kc9sgv@?????.???>
To: amsat-bb@?????.???
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more
interest and revenue
Message-ID: <00C6A550-6BFA-4F64-906D-2DEF8EBC2C04@?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Students all over the Western World can do this...
Just not students in the USA and Canada.
https://amsat-uk.org/2019/07/21/high-school-students-in-brazil-building-qo-100
-ground-station/
Bernard,
KC9SGV
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 29, 2019, at 10:08 AM, KC9SGV <kc9sgv@?????.???> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: KC9SGV <kc9sgv@?????.???>
>> Date: July 29, 2019 at 10:00:55 AM CDT
>> To: Zach Leffke <zleffke@??.???>
>> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more
interest and revenue
>>
>> Excellent points and thoughts by Dan and Zach.
>>
>> I might just add that yes, we have ITAR and EAR, but would asking a
future South American commercial GEO communications or TV satellite effort
to just lend us a standby transponder or two, be a violation of these laws ?
>> (Existing power, budget, etc.)
>> We could act naive and just ask.
>> Sometimes, just asking, is all that is needed.
>> Especially if STEM is pushed.
>>
>> Bernard,
>> KC9SGV
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>> On Jul 29, 2019, at 9:31 AM, Zach Leffke via AMSAT-BB
<amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>>>
>>> Good summary Dan.
>>>
>>> I have nothing major to add, but would like to make two statements:
>>>
>>> 1) through the VT/AMSAT partnership in the past we explored
opportunities for both HEO and GEO missions. The most 'real' of those
opportunities involved a possible GEO mission on an Air Force satellite,
with VT engineers bridging the military/ham radio sides. HEO was a briefer
opportunity, and sadly neither of the opportunities panned out (though
technically GEO is 'on hold indefinitely'.....). From my work with the Hume
Center at VT and the Space@?? group, I will attempt to keep my eyes open for
similar opportunities in the future, and if something appears to have 'meat
on the bone' as a target of opportunity and potential rideshare/secondary
payload, I'll bring it to AMSAT's attention. I would encourage others to do
the same if they are in a similar position........it may be we don't pay for
a HEO/GEO, but rather an odd confluence of events makes something
materialize in our favor....and we should be ready, willing, and able to
take advantage of those situations....
>>>
>>> 2) I also constantly remind folks (from students to gov't officials
when the opportunity presents itself) about Dan's last statement that Ham
radio made the secondary launch market. OSCAR-1 launched 4 years and change
after Sputnik-1, and I love watching eyes widen when folks realize what that
means (especially the gov't types).
>>>
>>>
>>> -Zach, KJ4QLP
>>>
>>> P.S. LOVE the positive direction of this thread...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Research Associate
>>> Aerospace Systems Lab
>>> Ted & Karyn Hume Center for National Security & Technology
>>> Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
>>> Work Phone: 540-231-4174
>>> Cell Phone: 540-808-6305
>>>
>>>> On 7/29/19 10:08 AM, Daniel Schultz via AMSAT-BB wrote:
>>>> On July 28, 2019 6:46:20 PM CDT, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB
<amsat-bb@?????.???>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type
>>>> goals?
>>>>> Ev, W2EV
>>>> We would all love to have another HEO satellite, however the ecosystem in
>>>> which we live today has changed a great deal since AMSAT built AO-10,
AO-13
>>>> and AO-40 a couple of decades ago:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The launch market has become saturated with small satellites. In the
>>>> 1970's, 80's and 90's, AMSAT was often the only entity that was willing
to put
>>>> a satellite on top of a new untested launch vehicle. Today every
university on
>>>> the planet has its own satellite project, along with more and more high
>>>> schools and even a few elementary schools. AMSAT is working with some
of these
>>>> universities to carry ham radio transponders on their satellites, but the
>>>> university satellite mission is different from our mission, they just
want to
>>>> throw together something fast and cheap that can launch before the
students
>>>> graduate, and they don't need to get to HEO to do that. Long term
reliability
>>>> is not part of their equation.
>>>>
>>>> Commercial and Government entities have also discovered the value of
small
>>>> satellites, and the launch market has reacted to that by charging
market-based
>>>> prices for launches that AMSAT used to get for free or at highly
discounted
>>>> rates. We have to compete against commercial enterprises funded by
venture
>>>> capital, and because of the non-commercial nature of amateur radio, we
can't
>>>> use the same business model of charging the end users to recover our
costs.
>>>> NASA can and does launch small Cubesats for educational and scientific
>>>> purposes that fit into the NASA mission, but amateur radio
communications by
>>>> itself does not advance the NASA mission. We need to find partners in the
>>>> educational and scientific world to get launches through this program.
>>>>
>>>> Because Cubesats have dominated the satellite market, there are no more
>>>> affordable launches for satellites the size of AO-13, let alone AO-40.
We are
>>>> now faced with the need to cram the functionality of an AO-13 satellite
into a
>>>> 3U (or possibly 6U) Cubesat. We may or we may not be able to do that,
there is
>>>> a limit to the ability to cram 50 Kg of payload into a 5 Kg box. While
Moore's
>>>> Law has enabled today's electronics technology to be smaller and
lighter than
>>>> it was two decades ago, remember that satellites are driven by
Shannon's Law,
>>>> not by Moore's Law. We need to generate electrical power and we need
antenna
>>>> gain to carry out a satellite communications mission. AO-13 was a simple
>>>> spinning satellite that was big enough to accept the inefficiencies of
>>>> off-pointed solar arrays. On a Cubesat we would need to keep the
smaller solar
>>>> arrays precisely aimed at the Sun and the antennas aimed at the Earth,
and
>>>> this requires sophisticated three axis control systems.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that came into
force
>>>> about 20 years ago have placed severe restrictions on our ability to
work with
>>>> foreign partners. AO-40 was built by a partnership of more than a dozen
>>>> countries all contributing parts, subsystems and money to get it done.
Today
>>>> we are cut off from the rest of the world. Building a wall around the
USA has
>>>> never made us safe or prosperous.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Orbital debris regulations now require satellite builders to prove
to the
>>>> FCC that the satellite will reenter in 25 years or less. In highly
inclined
>>>> elliptical orbits such as AO-13 we can possibly exploit solar and lunar
>>>> resonances that will bring down the satellite in a decade or two, but
in the
>>>> lower inclination GTO launches that are more common, we would be
dependent on
>>>> rocket thrust to provide the delta-V to lower the perigee. If you look
at the
>>>> NORAD catalog, most of the spent rocket bodies left in GTO remain there
for a
>>>> long time unless they are deliberately de-orbited.
>>>>
>>>> All of these factors have lined up to make the AMSAT mission much more
>>>> difficult than it was 20 years ago. Spaceflight is hard, and if we
don't have
>>>> the fortitude to meet the new challenges, than we will not be part of
it in
>>>> the future. I believe that we can and we will have new HEO satellites
but we
>>>> won't be doing it under the rules that we operated under in the past. If
>>>> somebody wanted to write a check for $20 million, we could buy a HEO
launch to
>>>> whatever orbit we wanted, but in the absence of such support we will
have to
>>>> use cleverness and guile to get it done. I have constantly reminded the
>>>> satellite professionals that it was the hams who created the secondary
launch
>>>> market that they now enjoy, but I have have so far not seen much
interest from
>>>> them in reciprocating that favor.
>>>>
>>>> 73, Dan Schultz N8FGV
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@?????.???. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
>>>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
Opinions expressed
>>>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views
of AMSAT-NA.
>>>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
program!
>>>> Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@?????.???. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
>>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
Opinions expressed
>>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
>>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
>>> Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 19:14:43 +0400
From: Jean Marc Momple <jean.marc.momple@?????.???>
To: Daniel Schultz <n8fgv@???.???>
Cc: amsat-bb@?????.???
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more
interest and revenue
Message-ID: <942E770D-7F3D-4A3B-B68A-632F195CE951@?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Daniel,
One way around all the issues you mentioned is may be to "copy with pride"
the QO-100 GEO which has changed Radio Amateur satellites operations this
part of the world.
To explain; we are now we are back to experimentation building PA?s, feeds
etc? also enabling new modes which where not possible before (ATV in my
case). For 3B8 this is fantastic as in spite active on LEO's since 1978, not
much to do as we are in the middle of the ocean, only a few guys reachable
on LEO good passes. Now we can QSO with half of the world on a bird, loud
and clear 24/7 e.g.
What I mean is that trying to partner with some commercial operators to have
a HAM transponder on board of their satellite may be a solution, some may
even sponsor if we are convincing enough. More it would be fantastic to have
worldwide coverage with say 3 GEO?s, just a vision.
Some food for thought.
73
Jean Marc (3B8DU)
> On Jul 29, 2019, at 6:08 PM, Daniel Schultz via AMSAT-BB
<amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>
> On July 28, 2019 6:46:20 PM CDT, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>
> wrote:
>> What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type
> goals?
>> Ev, W2EV
>
> We would all love to have another HEO satellite, however the ecosystem in
> which we live today has changed a great deal since AMSAT built AO-10, AO-13
> and AO-40 a couple of decades ago:
>
> 1. The launch market has become saturated with small satellites. In the
> 1970's, 80's and 90's, AMSAT was often the only entity that was willing to
put
> a satellite on top of a new untested launch vehicle. Today every
university on
> the planet has its own satellite project, along with more and more high
> schools and even a few elementary schools. AMSAT is working with some of
these
> universities to carry ham radio transponders on their satellites, but the
> university satellite mission is different from our mission, they just want
to
> throw together something fast and cheap that can launch before the students
> graduate, and they don't need to get to HEO to do that. Long term
reliability
> is not part of their equation.
>
> Commercial and Government entities have also discovered the value of small
> satellites, and the launch market has reacted to that by charging
market-based
> prices for launches that AMSAT used to get for free or at highly discounted
> rates. We have to compete against commercial enterprises funded by venture
> capital, and because of the non-commercial nature of amateur radio, we can't
> use the same business model of charging the end users to recover our costs.
> NASA can and does launch small Cubesats for educational and scientific
> purposes that fit into the NASA mission, but amateur radio communications by
> itself does not advance the NASA mission. We need to find partners in the
> educational and scientific world to get launches through this program.
>
> Because Cubesats have dominated the satellite market, there are no more
> affordable launches for satellites the size of AO-13, let alone AO-40. We
are
> now faced with the need to cram the functionality of an AO-13 satellite
into a
> 3U (or possibly 6U) Cubesat. We may or we may not be able to do that,
there is
> a limit to the ability to cram 50 Kg of payload into a 5 Kg box. While
Moore's
> Law has enabled today's electronics technology to be smaller and lighter
than
> it was two decades ago, remember that satellites are driven by Shannon's
Law,
> not by Moore's Law. We need to generate electrical power and we need antenna
> gain to carry out a satellite communications mission. AO-13 was a simple
> spinning satellite that was big enough to accept the inefficiencies of
> off-pointed solar arrays. On a Cubesat we would need to keep the smaller
solar
> arrays precisely aimed at the Sun and the antennas aimed at the Earth, and
> this requires sophisticated three axis control systems.
>
> 2. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that came into force
> about 20 years ago have placed severe restrictions on our ability to work
with
> foreign partners. AO-40 was built by a partnership of more than a dozen
> countries all contributing parts, subsystems and money to get it done. Today
> we are cut off from the rest of the world. Building a wall around the USA
has
> never made us safe or prosperous.
>
> 3. Orbital debris regulations now require satellite builders to prove to the
> FCC that the satellite will reenter in 25 years or less. In highly inclined
> elliptical orbits such as AO-13 we can possibly exploit solar and lunar
> resonances that will bring down the satellite in a decade or two, but in the
> lower inclination GTO launches that are more common, we would be dependent
on
> rocket thrust to provide the delta-V to lower the perigee. If you look at
the
> NORAD catalog, most of the spent rocket bodies left in GTO remain there
for a
> long time unless they are deliberately de-orbited.
>
> All of these factors have lined up to make the AMSAT mission much more
> difficult than it was 20 years ago. Spaceflight is hard, and if we don't
have
> the fortitude to meet the new challenges, than we will not be part of it in
> the future. I believe that we can and we will have new HEO satellites but we
> won't be doing it under the rules that we operated under in the past. If
> somebody wanted to write a check for $20 million, we could buy a HEO
launch to
> whatever orbit we wanted, but in the absence of such support we will have to
> use cleverness and guile to get it done. I have constantly reminded the
> satellite professionals that it was the hams who created the secondary
launch
> market that they now enjoy, but I have have so far not seen much interest
from
> them in reciprocating that favor.
>
> 73, Dan Schultz N8FGV
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@?????.???. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 11:18:16 -0400
From: Robert Bruninga <bruninga@????.???>
To: amsat bb <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Cc: Tom?? Urbanec <urbanec@????.?????.??>
Subject: [amsat-bb] PSAT2 Commanding of transponder/camera boards
Message-ID: <baa5e02de072fad4392952394e2f42da@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
PSAT2 is looking for stations in the low latitudes (below 35 deg) for better
commanding.
With the 28 degree orbit, our best command stations rarely see PSAT2.
We need stations for PSAT2 VHF with a radio capable of 1 KHz steps or less
on FM.
We also need stations for the PSK31 and SSTV commanding.
These need UHF reception able to make I/Q recordings.
And for SSTV commanding, a station with HF 29 MHz uplink is desired.
So far, PY5LF in Brazil has been working very well.
Bob, Wb4APR
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb@?????.???.
AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide
without requiring membership. Opinions expressed
are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 14, Issue 287
*****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
