|New tech is great, |but one line of thought is to keep most of the |high tech stuff on the ground and keep the |satellite relatively simple and reliable. |Just a thought. Bob
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Steve Meuse Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:39 PM To: Jason White Cc: Amsat BB Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do the amsats get more and more
complex?
Jason White expunged (jason@jason.white.name):
Anyway, I'm just curious why it seems that every new
satellite project
proposed seems to be bigger and more complex than the last?
I keep
hearing about exotic modes and uplink/downlink bands for
P3E.. software
defined transceivers, etc. etc. and what it looks like to
me are more
and more failure points. I understand the need to push the
limits of
technology as a justification for our very existence, but
personally I
feel like the designs are overly complicated and highly
priced. I'm not
ready to switch my earth station to SDRs, for instance..
I'm dubious
about putting one into orbit.. then again, I'm not skilled
enough to
make those sorts of decisions.
A minor note of clarification, the Software Defined Transponder (SDX) does not require groundstations to run SDRs. It's a new method to implement the traditional linear transponder design in software.
Now, as for the bigger/better issue, I'll make some
observations:
- P3E is purpose built as a technology testing platform for a
very specific Mars mission, I don't see it as all bells and whistles. (bigger better for the sake of bigger better)
- The Eagle design, as it's turning out, *seems* to be much
less complicated than a AO-40 or P3E, at least in the number of bands and functions.
Then there are the basics, like FCC Part 97 rules:
Specifically...
ยง97.1 Basis and purpose.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.
What I'm getting at is that Oscar 7 proved how reliable
older technology
can be.. For the price of one of the phase 3 birds it
seems like
several Mode B linear transponder sats could be put up, or
a few more FM
sats. I personally would much rather see a modest mode B
sat in AO-40s
intended orbital pattern than to try to wrangle parts for
microwave.
I've talked about this before, but it's important to remember that AMSAT is not a serivce provider. We don't exist to provide a continual supply of mode X transponders in Y orbit. We're here to advance the state of the art, IMHO.
(of course, I still hold the right to throw a temper tantrum over mode S downlinks)
Wouldn't it be better to separate out some of the more
experimental
stuff from the old standbys? That way a failure of one
whole sat would
still leave something usable for the same money spent. My
vote would be
to piggyback a completely independent analog satellite onto
P3E "just in
case".
If you want to build an "old standby" sat, go for it!
The people who are actively building sats aren't interested in that. I don't blame them either. But remember, AMSAT isn't stopping ANYONE from putting a team together to build a new
sat.
If someone could help me understand why the direction is
the way it is
maybe I could get excited about the bigger sats, but I
think you get
more "bang for the buck" with the smaller less complicated
birds. My
favorite so far is PCSat I. Mostly off the shelf hardware
and I had a
very easy time digipeating APRS through it. One of those in
an
elliptical orbit would be a hoot!
Of course, you would likely need a more robust equipment set to work HEO :) It's a give and take, there isn't a perfect
solution.
-Steve N1JFU
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: