At 05:23 AM 10/1/2007, SV1BSX wrote:
....hmmm, and its also unfair to don't say that, the possibility for a malfuction with 20,000 vs 20 transistors is .... 1,000 times greater !
Simple mathematics... even if these 20,000 transistors do a better job, the risk is too big.
Well, I don't think the risk of failure should be keeping us in the 1970's. Sure, the SDX is untested, but so was every other technology that is used in space at one stage. If you don't take the risk, you don't learn how to enable these things to survive in space either. I certainly like the idea of a backup analog transponder, so that the satellite can perform some useful function, even if its primary "experiment" fails. Having older technology alongside the new also gives a benchmark to compare against, in terms of how they degrade over time in the space environment.
Oh, and we don't seem to get the same complaints about the digital birds that have been flying for over 2 decades, or newer and more complex IHUs that have flown. The way I see it, is new technology has to be flown when the risks seem acceptable to make it worth putting into space. I don't have a problem with having backup, in case the experiment fails (obviously, there is a weight penalty here), but my question is whether there is really any value in an am Amateur satellite service that does little more than puts "more of the same old stuff" in orbit. Shouldn't be putting some of our energy into finding out how to safely use new technologies in the space environment at an affordable cost?
73 de VK3JED http://vkradio.com