Rocky Jones wrote:
The question is cost vrs value.
Well, again that will have to be determined by each person using his or her values. As I stated in my post, I can see the "value" and gave you my reasons. Naturally, you open to disagree.
First off there is almost nothing "free" on the spacestation. The launch might be, but the devil is in the integration details and cost. I dont know what those were for Suitsat1 nor do I know what they are for Suitsat 2 (or sat without the suit)...but the instant the "astronauts" get involved in any substantive manner the cost go up very very quickly.
But these are not costs to AMSAT (which is what I thought you were asking) The astronauts are a cost to the US tax payers.
Then the next question is "is it worth" whatever the cost are? That is a value judgment and in my view has to be weighed with a lot of factors particularly when funds are limited.
Agreed, and each one of us AMSAT members has to determine that. Clearly, AMSAT leadership has determined the value proposition is there. If you disagree, do more than write the -bb. Become involved with AMSAT in a host of ways that have been solicited in the Journal and "work" to make the changes you would like. Oh by the way, the pay is next to nothing. Wait a minute - it is nothing!
Was Oscar 40 worth it? A lot was bet on that satellite, had it worked (or if it was still working) then the value might have approached the cost...as it was well it is hard to argue that the cost put into it was worth what was gotten out of it. Suitsat 1 was a simple satellite that didnt work, the answer is to try a more complicated one?
Hey, a lot of commercial satellites weren't successes. A lot of vehicle launches weren't successes. Does that mean we quit if we can't be "guaranteed or your money back?"
I am quite certain that the "individual" cost of Suitsat 1 and Suitsat 2 are less then the cost of "doing another AO-7 but things add up and the cost of two or three or four of these projects might eventually add up to an AO-7 or helping 3E get off the ground.
Nope! That won't add up to a AO-7 or 3E with its $10 million plus launch cost. Let's say a AO-51 satellite costs $500,000 to built and launch. That's twenty AO-51 satellites before to get to a GTO launch. Hey, I'll change my tune about other launches, if any one or a bunch of you P3E proponents (me included) can pony up the 10 million.
The Russians have a saying "If you (Urinate...they use a different word) into your boot then for a bit you are warmer, and then you are colder and wonder why you did it" (OK I cleaned it up).
Put another way? Are you happy with the current state of the satellite constellation?
I'm never satisfied, that's why I volunteer to built more technically challenging AMSAT satellites, but I've learn to deal with the harsh "realities" we're dealt with, and make the best of it.
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook. Find out more. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_facebook:082009