Whatever the politics or attitudes involved, I think it is possible to view the situation more optimistically.
We all know that in today's climate a HEO flight will entail either a huge donation campaign or a free ride. If both AMSAT-NA and AMSAT-DL were chasing these funds, we would lose the opportunities that FOX is offering in Cubesat design, and we'd certainly never raise the money necessary for HEO. As it is, I think -DL is doing a great job positioning themselves within the Euro context, but obviously there are difficult economic headwinds for them to overcome.
I suppose we can all agree that the SDX on ARISSAT and about to be flown on the FOXES will be an important technology whatever the orbit of a future amateur communication satellite. In many ways, the advantages of SDX are even more profound in HEO; indeed, if I remember correctly, it was first conceived for Eagle, a HEO bird.
Thus if ITAR relaxes somewhat, AMSAT-NA's know-how in SDX can assist a future HEO project in countries like India, where a future HEO launch subsidized by the government is still possible. (And if it doesn't, AMSAT-NA can still partner with cubesat projects within the US, a sizable number.)
I suspect the misunderstanding below comes from two meanings of the word 'cubesat', a confusion that I've noticed several times in the last couple of weeks. Most accurately defined, cubesat is a physical format and cheap launch system. However, because until now most satellites in the cubesat format have not had a communications component, we amateurs have tended to consider them 'telemetry and control' satellites, omitting the communications component which we all enjoy.
If, with reference to this latter definition, you were to say 'most amateurs aren't interested in cubesats', you'd probably be right. (Though I'm among those who find them fascinating.) However, the goal of Fox-and-Friends (sorry, I've been avoiding making that joke for a while now) is to provide Echo-quality communications. If you say 'most amateurs aren't interested in cubesats' with reference to those capabilities, I think you'd be quite wrong: who would stipulate that the satellite must be big, heavy and expensive to launch in order to have fun communicating with a neighboring country through it?
I hope nobody thinks I've misrepresented their ideas. I just think there is far more that unites us than divides, especially with the amazing opportunities that are on the way.
73, VE9QRP
Bruce
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Stefan Wagener wageners@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thanks for responding. I am amazed by your reaction to a simple post. Calling it "crude, false, blinded by rage" is quite a statement. But hey, you have every right to your opinion!
Now then, please help me and others understand your comments you made at AMSAT-UK (listed below):
"The amateur community in general is not interested in Cubesats, "I know some of you might not like to hear that "It might sound like a high nose attitude, but it is life "Those that have done P3 satellites have no interest in Cubesats
If those statements, which by the way come directly from the AMSAT-UK video of your presentation (available online) are made by the president of AMSAT-DL at an international meeting, I certainly do not call this an endorsement but rather a denouncement of AMSAT-DL's interest in cubesats.
If you call this "crude, false and blinded by rage"... I am not sure what your talking about and it certainly does not help or aid in the discussion.
The simple basic fact is that AMSAT-DL under your leadership is not building, designing or planning any CubeSat projects (as far as I know). Now, please prove me wrong. I would love to support (financially) an AMSAT-DL Cubesat mission.
Stefan VE4NSA (DG1GWS)
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Peter Guelzow peter.guelzow@kourou.de wrote:
On 08.12.2011 16:17, Stefan Wagener wrote:
very simple, politics.
AMSAT-DL's leadership has openly denouced Cubesats. So two of the biggest AMSATs either can't or don't want to. Talk about a pathetic situation for our community.
Stefan VE4NSA
I don't know what kind of problem you have and why you make such crude and false presences.
What is so wrong when we are saying that we (the AMSAT-DL members and BOD) want to build and fly another "AMSAT P3-E" rather than a CubeSat?
Should we scrap P3-E for the sake of another CubeSat??
Neither does the AMSAT-DL BOD nor does our membership condemn or disapprove CubeSats.
In the past years we had CubeSat team from German Universities coming to our Symposium. We have even given advice to some of them or help *if wanted*. We also attended a critical design review of SwissCube, etc.. I was personally at the CubeSat laboratory of the University of Tokyo a couple of years ago to see some of their first CubeSats and discuss some ideas with the Students and their Professor.
We have simply decided to concentrate our efforts to what is more important for our community.
If you would have listen *carefuly* and not blinded by rage to what I have said during the AMSAT-UK Colloquium, you would not make repeatedly such statements...
Peter DB2OS President AMSAT-DL _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. 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@amsat.org. 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