On 7/28/2019 18:46, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB wrote:
What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type goals?
Actually, from my perspective right now the top barrier is orbital debris regulations. GOLF-1 isn't going where I wanted to go because the enforcement has become stringent and a hot topic worldwide. We can't license or launch anything that doesn't de-orbit within 25 years and a HEO orbit (GTO actually, keeping it simple for this point) is likely to last "too long" by itself. There are options available for deorbit BUT the kicker right now is that they have to be proven and approved by the FCC. In that we know of no such device(s) available at this time, keeping within the current expectations of 3U. A change in size (6U) might yield some possibilities but I know of none there either, right now. We have been discussing and working with both NASA and FCC for possibilities. If something is available whether drag or propulsion, then we get into the cost issue not to mention the price of a launch to a GTO which is currently around $900k MSRP. If we had a million bucks and approved device(s) were available right now that fit within a $1 million budget then we would be pursuing that.
Another option is to find a launch with a low enough perigee to naturally decay in 25 years, but whether earning an ELaNa launch or buying one, we will always be secondary payload and don't have a lot of say in specific orbit parameters.
One more option is rideshare, and that is also in active discussion. The point there would be that the onus of orbital debris compliance is on the satellite we hitch a ride with, although that also goes into not having a lot of say on the final orbit not to mention satisfying a primary payload that everything will be just fine if they take us along. And then again, there's likely cost there too... We have some options that wouldn't necessarily require lots of money, they just won't be happening today.
Other possibilities? As far as I know we are pursuing the current options available per NASA and FCC, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other possibilities. If you have any, keep in mind that building a good case for use of whatever the possibility might be is key to gaining any approval. And 90% probability that whatever will get you back in less than 25 years is a tough challenge.
We are bucking a trend, general CubeSat missions are happy with going lower or from ISS, and bucking the trend not new with AMSAT but it is new in this world today because of the regulation and stakes as well as the fact that most everyone we deal with has no knowledge of AMSAT beyond the record the we have created and grown in the last 4 years of launches. We are not magically known just because we launched some pretty cool satellites in the past. Hopefully we will be known by more through our continued contact, cooperation, and "by the book" production and delivery of CubeSats with NASA, FCC, launch integrators, and others who we look to for these launch opportunities.
Or get a bunch of money because that probably is the second biggest barrier...
Jerry Buxton, NØJY