On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Andrew Glasbrenner glasbrenner@mindspring.com wrote:
Obviously, the GEO is probably the most expensive, with HEO being close to it,
Not necessarily. A small package on Intelsat may be significantly more affordable than Eagle. On the other hand, putting everything from Eagle on Intelsat would likely be more expensive. There are also considerably different risks. Eagle has all the things we've been good about messing up previously, and a Intelsat rideshare has almost none.
As much as I like the idea of an Intelsat ride share, I think there will be too much non-satellite, non-ham stuff involved, e.g. legal things and contracts. What kind of MOUs, memorandums, contracts, etc. are going to be involved? Will hands be tied, due to some kind of required assurance, from either Intelsat or its manufacturer? Will we have to buy expensive insurance, so that if the payload malfunctions and disruptions Intelsat operations, things are covered? What commitments and assurances need to be put into place?
No one knows at this point. Intelsat isn't going to be thrilled with a low-quality product from us, so therefore AMSAT's costs go up, to help minimize their risks.
As Bob B said earlier...there are several tradeoffs to consider, and let me say even the BOD doesn't have the full details to consider yet.
So this is why attaching a "costs vs. benefits" analysis to a simple survey is so difficult!
Personally, I'm in favor of doing whatever project gets us on station with long distance comms first, without breaking the piggybank, or too much risk. It is, without a doubt, a very difficult and complicated decision.
I'm glad we can agree on this!
Honestly, thanks for chiming into the BB, Drew. It is my hope that all the other directors are reading.
73,
Dave AF6KD (ex n0tgd)