On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Rocky Jones [email protected] wrote:
Finally..
As for 80 percent of "suitsat 2 failing"...actually that is the consensus among a lot of folks at the center. I give "Suitsat 2" less then 10 percent chance of working. That didnt take oh several decades of dealing with complex programs or a bunch of US government schools or a lot of engineering degrees to figure out. It is really not "rocket science"...Suitsat 1 was a bomb and it was much simpler. Now they are trying something more complicated... I am not even sure it deploys. If it flops well it is hard to see a lot of ham radio traction on the space station after that.
I find it terribly frustrating, Rocky, that you keep repeating your entirely bleak assessment of Suitsat, in light of the number of letters I've sent in reply that indicate that the educational aspect of that mission was, in my experience, quite successful. As a sample of these, see, http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02665.html I know and respect that you do not value that mission as much as other aspects of the amateur satellite program, but to make an honest assessment of Suitsat, you need to do it on its own terms, and, as I understood it, education and outreach was a large part of it.
That said, there were problems with the original suitsat which, were they to appear in ISSSat, would make it difficult (but not impossible, I'd venture) for it to fulfill its missions. However, the reasoning that you ascribe to JPL space scientists seems to suggest that the ISSSat people are unable to learn from these past problems, an attitude that I would think might make their day job very depressing indeed. I rather hope that the majority of space engineers take a more optimistic view of their field; but a discussion at a birthday party is nothing like a survey, of course, so 'consensus' above is an over-statement.
Finally, I'd add that even if your 'less than 10%' assessment were knowable and correct, I would say that AMSAT is right to take this opportunity. We have put a lot of effort into SDX on the ground, it is a very attractive technology, and a free launch opportunity for this is too good to pass up. Moreover, I suspect there are many things being learned along the way in integrating this technology in the spaceframe, which will help us know more. I'm also not sure that the stakes are as high as you suggest: in your assessment, SS1 was a failure, yet we still have been allowed to do SS2. Perhaps the ISS folks recognize other benefits that your assessment does not.
But Just think, if it works you can tell me I was wrong! Wont that be fun?
I'm sorry to say this, but the above quotation displays a very poor attitude to the efforts of this organization. If I were a betting man, and the bookies would take odds on satellite launches, I'd bet against just about every amateur satellite launch effort. This isn't because we are bad at what we do, it is because space is hard, we often have to get rides on less-than-proven launches, and we try new things. But I want to be part of a group that beats the odds, that does something spectacular, that makes people young and old say, "That's cool!". When it succeeds, a healthy organization does not use this fact to turn on the detractors within its ranks because it is too busy enjoying success; but equally, detractors should not take any pleasure in failures, but rather work hard to give specific advice about how best to find success.
73, Bruce VE9QRP