September 2012 - AMSAT-BB - mailman.amsat.org

Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7, Issue 312)
by Bill W1PA 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

Based on the economics, those of us with aspirations of having a HEO in the near future might be better off upgrading our set-ups for the high-reliability _passive_ HEO that is available (aka EME). With absolutely no intent at sarcasm, any pointers to articles on how to take a HEO-class station up to EME-capable? Are "small station-small station" QSO's possible on EME, or does at least one station have to look like W5UN or Arecibo? (ok, maybe a little sarcasm) Bill W1PA (sitting on some collapsible C-band dishes)

2 1

winaos
by Bob- W7LRD 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

disregard my last email for help with winaos...nothing like reading all the directions..73 Bob

1 0

satpc32 winaos
by Bob- W7LRD 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

the aos in winaos program is about 12 min. before the actual aos. Being slightly digitally challenged I am having a problem figuring it out. working them till they drop 73 Bob W7LRD

2 1

The future of ham satellites
by wa4hfn＠comcast.net 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

excuses excuses, sounds like obama blaming Bush .Lets face guys It looks like the future of the ham satellite is almost over due to cost of a launch.We can all type fancy excuses all day long about this subject and still get no where . It is up to the people that the 22% have voted into the Amsat positions to lead us into the future of ham satellites and up to us as the users to support Amsat the best we can with money and ideas that can be productive to our cause. I do not support the school beeper birds , but if they would add a repeater to their bird that would change the entire problem. That being said I am asking Amsat to work with each schools that plans a beeper bird to also add a repeater to there project We all win WA4HFN

1 0

battery recomendation for cube
by Nick Pugh 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

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

1 0

Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7, Issue 312)
by Barry Baines 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

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) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.ca; s=s1024;t=1348432005; bh=80uPIe5CmB8SGZ5MZxoULRcCEHpTMj/CnSBzOEshbmE=;h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;b=2XqW1uQOnVUxJ6VdnkvH2vSdsHvVxS0N6ibnK0WcxjQsYwAy1kZl9/g9BcIjf18lHjHTX602nnlh9yI2ATubVWyTeGJoAUbCF6x87XHC6fUzr34EXU814LLgA1hzHDyF7qMfKuTO8AgCf0eM7sUyGNkaG3XbGRGOyeQvIJ+okeE= 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 HEO satellite 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.ht… 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

9 11

Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7, Issue 312)
by Trevor . 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

--- On Tue, 25/9/12, Gus 8P6SM <8p6sm(a)anjo.com> 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_fre… 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

1 0

Re: Launch Costs (was-re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol. 7, Issue 312)
by Daniel Schultz 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

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

2 1

path to HEO
by Nick Pugh 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

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

1 0

Re: Launch Costs
by Barry Baines 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

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

1 0