The worldwide amateur radio community must interface with one unified voice to the various space agencies that form the ISS partnership. The ARISS organization, whatever its flaws may be, was created by the efforts of a lot of hard working hams in many countries to provide that interface. Without it ham radio would have no access to the manned space program, and as a child of the 1960's who grew up with the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions, I am thrilled that we hams have such access. I could easily imagine a world where this was not allowed. The fact that we are able to launch anything to the ISS, given the astronomical value of every kilogram of payload mass on the Progress or the Shuttle, and every minute of astronaut and cosmonaut time on orbit, is truly amazing.
The recent complaints on the BB remind me of the hams who bash the ARRL without understanding that without the ARRL, amateur radio would have been abolished long ago by the powers that be. We hams need to understand that whatever disagreements exist between us are not nearly as serious as the external threats to our amateur radio avocation. Whatever your beef is, please work within the organization to make it better, and not tear it down in public view. Writing “open letters” addressed to the world’s space agencies is not helpful to this effort or to your fellow hams.
Moving on another amsat-bb thread, AO-40 was designed and built to take advantage of what turned out to be a once in a lifetime opportunity to launch a very large amateur payload into geosynchronous transfer orbit. Had we chosen not to build it, I can imagine lots of people complaining on amsat-bb about how Amsat management had dropped the ball and squandered an amazing launch opportunity.
The presence of exotic transponders on AO-40 is not what caused its failure. The 24 GHz payload was contributed by an Amsat member organization and was built because they believed strongly enough in its value that they committed their effort and their funds to get it built. There were transponders on AO-40 to serve every interest, from VHF to UHF to S-band to millimeter wave. Hams MUST push their technical limits and explore new frontiers, it is one of the reasons amateur radio still exists. Critics cried about the "complexity" of the S-band downlink and then some clever hams took some cheap off the shelf TV down converters, made some slight mods to retune the input frequency, and got a lot of hams active with 2.4 GHz receive capability for very little money.
I agree with the letter in this month's QST (September issue, page 24), suggesting that those who complain that the amateur radio has gotten "too technical" might better enjoy reading People Magazine instead.
Dan Schultz N8FGV
Thanks for this Dan.
73,
Tim - N3TL
________________________________ From: Daniel Schultz n8fgv@usa.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 12:47:37 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
The worldwide amateur radio community must interface with one unified voice to the various space agencies that form the ISS partnership. The ARISS organization, whatever its flaws may be, was created by the efforts of a lot of hard working hams in many countries to provide that interface. Without it ham radio would have no access to the manned space program, and as a child of the 1960's who grew up with the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions, I am thrilled that we hams have such access. I could easily imagine a world where this was not allowed. The fact that we are able to launch anything to the ISS, given the astronomical value of every kilogram of payload mass on the Progress or the Shuttle, and every minute of astronaut and cosmonaut time on orbit, is truly amazing.
The recent complaints on the BB remind me of the hams who bash the ARRL without understanding that without the ARRL, amateur radio would have been abolished long ago by the powers that be. We hams need to understand that whatever disagreements exist between us are not nearly as serious as the external threats to our amateur radio avocation. Whatever your beef is, please work within the organization to make it better, and not tear it down in public view. Writing “open letters” addressed to the world’s space agencies is not helpful to this effort or to your fellow hams.
Moving on another amsat-bb thread, AO-40 was designed and built to take advantage of what turned out to be a once in a lifetime opportunity to launch a very large amateur payload into geosynchronous transfer orbit. Had we chosen not to build it, I can imagine lots of people complaining on amsat-bb about how Amsat management had dropped the ball and squandered an amazing launch opportunity.
The presence of exotic transponders on AO-40 is not what caused its failure. The 24 GHz payload was contributed by an Amsat member organization and was built because they believed strongly enough in its value that they committed their effort and their funds to get it built. There were transponders on AO-40 to serve every interest, from VHF to UHF to S-band to millimeter wave. Hams MUST push their technical limits and explore new frontiers, it is one of the reasons amateur radio still exists. Critics cried about the "complexity" of the S-band downlink and then some clever hams took some cheap off the shelf TV down converters, made some slight mods to retune the input frequency, and got a lot of hams active with 2.4 GHz receive capability for very little money.
I agree with the letter in this month's QST (September issue, page 24), suggesting that those who complain that the amateur radio has gotten "too technical" might better enjoy reading People Magazine instead.
Dan Schultz N8FGV
_______________________________________________ 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: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Great points Dan! I can think of anything I could add.
73, Ken N2WWD
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Schultz Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 12:48 AM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
The worldwide amateur radio community must interface with one unified voice to the various space agencies that form the ISS partnership. The ARISS organization, whatever its flaws may be, was created by the efforts of a lot of hard working hams in many countries to provide that interface. Without it ham radio would have no access to the manned space program, and as a child of the 1960's who grew up with the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions, I am thrilled that we hams have such access. I could easily imagine a world where this was not allowed. The fact that we are able to launch anything to the ISS, given the astronomical value of every kilogram of payload mass on the Progress or the Shuttle, and every minute of astronaut and cosmonaut time on orbit, is truly amazing.
The recent complaints on the BB remind me of the hams who bash the ARRL without understanding that without the ARRL, amateur radio would have been abolished long ago by the powers that be. We hams need to understand that whatever disagreements exist between us are not nearly as serious as the external threats to our amateur radio avocation. Whatever your beef is, please work within the organization to make it better, and not tear it down in public view. Writing open letters addressed to the worlds space agencies is not helpful to this effort or to your fellow hams.
Moving on another amsat-bb thread, AO-40 was designed and built to take advantage of what turned out to be a once in a lifetime opportunity to launch a very large amateur payload into geosynchronous transfer orbit. Had we chosen not to build it, I can imagine lots of people complaining on amsat-bb about how Amsat management had dropped the ball and squandered an amazing launch opportunity.
The presence of exotic transponders on AO-40 is not what caused its failure. The 24 GHz payload was contributed by an Amsat member organization and was built because they believed strongly enough in its value that they committed their effort and their funds to get it built. There were transponders on AO-40 to serve every interest, from VHF to UHF to S-band to millimeter wave. Hams MUST push their technical limits and explore new frontiers, it is one of the reasons amateur radio still exists. Critics cried about the "complexity" of the S-band downlink and then some clever hams took some cheap off the shelf TV down converters, made some slight mods to retune the input frequency, and got a lot of hams active with 2.4 GHz receive capability for very little money.
I agree with the letter in this month's QST (September issue, page 24), suggesting that those who complain that the amateur radio has gotten "too technical" might better enjoy reading People Magazine instead.
Dan Schultz N8FGV
_______________________________________________ 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: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.64/2321 - Release Date: 08/23/09 06:18:00
Dan Schultz N8FGV
based on your logic no criticism whatsoever is warranted.
As for AO-40. It failed for the same reason that suitsat 1 did, and for the same reason that a lot of people who build their own airplane kill themselves every year trying to "test fly it"....the project got to big for the organization that was building it...ie their technical competence was insufficient for the task at hand.
But in your view (at least as best as I understand it) that evaluation should not be made because "at least they tried".
sorry I dont buy that logic
Robert WB5MZO
_________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:W...
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rocky Jones" orbitjet@hotmail.com To: n8fgv@usa.net; "Amsat BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:38 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
As for AO-40. It failed for the same reason that suitsat 1 did, and for the same reason that a lot of people who build their own airplane kill themselves every year trying to "test fly it"....the project got to big for the organization that was building it...ie their technical competence was insufficient for the task at hand.
But in your view (at least as best as I understand it) that evaluation should not be made because "at least they tried".
sorry I dont buy that logic
Robert WB5MZO
Hi Robert, WB5MZO
Why in your opinion many commercial and military satellites fails every year on launch or in orbit.....and even the STS-107 failed ?
Why for AO-40 in your opinion the project got to big for the organization that was building it i.e. AMSAT that was building it ?
And why in your opinion the technical competence of AMSAt-NA+ AMSAT-DL and many other AMSAT's partecipating to designe and build AO-40 was insufficient for the task at hand after demonstrating to be in condition to create all existing amateur OSCAR satellites beginning from OSCAR-6 to OSCAR-10 and OSCAR-13 ? ?
Just curious to know
73" de
i8CVS Domenico
Rocky Jones wrote:
As for AO-40. It failed for the same reason that suitsat 1 did, and for the same reason that a lot of people who build their own airplane kill themselves every year trying to "test fly it"....the project got to big for the organization that was building it...ie their technical competence was insufficient for the task at hand.
But in your view (at least as best as I understand it) that evaluation should not be made because "at least they tried".
sorry I dont buy that logic
Robert WB5MZO
I'm not quite sure who is quoting whom, i.e. if the quote above is by Rocky, who sent the email, or Dan, who is mentioned above the quotation that I excerpted, or by Robert, who seems to have signed it.
In any case, irrespective of who wrote it, the gist of it is getting under my skin...
"As for AO-40. It failed..." (because) "...the project got to (sic) big for the organization that was building it...ie (sic) their technical competence was insufficient for the task at hand"
Spelling and grammar aside (or maybe small details REALLY ARE important? -- just a random thought), it is hard to disagree logically with the fundamental principle. In less inflammatory terms, a bunch of amateurs who were not really rocket scientists tried to build a satellite, and they weren't able to pull it off 100% successfully because they tried to do more than they were qualified to do.
Nevertheless, does this mean that we should: a) never try to do something harder than what we KNOW in advance that we are capable of accomplishing?
b) never make mistakes, even though the only way to guarantee that you will never do anything WRONG is by DOING NOTHING AT ALL?
c) LEARN from our mistakes and try again?
Personally, I vote for number 3. Note that choice #3 doesn't say "keep repeating our mistakes", it says "LEARN from them" and implies that when we try again, we do so in a manner wherein we are better prepared than we were the time before.
OK. I am mad as hell that someone failed to notice the bright red (or was it yellow) flag attached to a port cap that clearly said "REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT", and caused the AO-40 propulsion system to self-destruct when activated. But dang it all, people should stop carping about the number, complexity, and even frequencies of the transponders that were placed aboard AO-40, because NONE of that had ANYTHING to do with the reason it failed. In fact, as I've said before, and has fallen on deaf ears before (or maybe it's on blind eyes), the COMPLEXITY of AO-40 is what SAVED it at all, made it usable at all, for the short time we had her around to enjoy. One transponder is blown up, switch over to a different one. Etc.
Call the AMSAT builders "incompetent" as many times as you want, it does not change one ugly fact. If you want a high earth orbit satellite (and I most certainly DO), IT MUST BE A COMPLEX DEVICE. ROCKET PROPULSION SYSTEMS ARE COMPLEX, BEST UNDERSTOOD BY ROCKET SCIENTISTS, AND YOU WILL NEVER GET TO H.E.O. WITHOUT ONE.
So, either stop whining that you want an H.E.O. satellite, or stop whining about wanting a satellite that is not complex. We either get the training/education/experience that allows us to "get it right", or we abandon the task and take up knitting. Or we keep stumbling around in the dark making lots of expensive mistakes. But as Scottie told Captain Kirk, "I'm sorry captain! I canna change the laws of physics!" A satellite in high earth orbit is a complex device.
And talk about having their heads inserted into their anal orifices, we have people saying, in essence, "you people are too stupid to make a complex high-earth-orbit satellite work", and at the same time, "you people are foolish to invest any energy into educating students about satellite technology", or even worse, "you are foolish to try to take students who are already interested in satellite technology and get them excited about the possibility of using that technology for non-commercial (i.e., AMATEUR) radio communications". Give me a break. Maybe one of those folks, a REAL rocket scientist, will someday be the person who leads us amateurs to success.
It all boils down to this. There is a nearly infinite number of non-productive choices that do not further the cause of progress. There are three fundamental choices that DO lead to progress: 1) LEAD 2) FOLLOW 3) GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY AND LET SOMEONE ELSE DO IT
73 de WØJT
Either we make history, or we complain about it. The choice is ours! This thread is dead!
Art KC6UQH
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of John P. Toscano Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 9:57 PM To: Amsat BB Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
Rocky Jones wrote:
As for AO-40. It failed for the same reason that suitsat 1 did, and for
the same reason that a lot of people who build their own airplane kill themselves every year trying to "test fly it"....the project got to big for the organization that was building it...ie their technical competence was insufficient for the task at hand.
But in your view (at least as best as I understand it) that evaluation
should not be made because "at least they tried".
sorry I dont buy that logic
Robert WB5MZO
I'm not quite sure who is quoting whom, i.e. if the quote above is by Rocky, who sent the email, or Dan, who is mentioned above the quotation that I excerpted, or by Robert, who seems to have signed it.
In any case, irrespective of who wrote it, the gist of it is getting under my skin...
"As for AO-40. It failed..." (because) "...the project got to (sic) big for the organization that was building it...ie (sic) their technical competence was insufficient for the task at hand"
Spelling and grammar aside (or maybe small details REALLY ARE important? -- just a random thought), it is hard to disagree logically with the fundamental principle. In less inflammatory terms, a bunch of amateurs who were not really rocket scientists tried to build a satellite, and they weren't able to pull it off 100% successfully because they tried to do more than they were qualified to do.
Nevertheless, does this mean that we should: a) never try to do something harder than what we KNOW in advance that we are capable of accomplishing?
b) never make mistakes, even though the only way to guarantee that you will never do anything WRONG is by DOING NOTHING AT ALL?
c) LEARN from our mistakes and try again?
Personally, I vote for number 3. Note that choice #3 doesn't say "keep repeating our mistakes", it says "LEARN from them" and implies that when we try again, we do so in a manner wherein we are better prepared than we were the time before.
OK. I am mad as hell that someone failed to notice the bright red (or was it yellow) flag attached to a port cap that clearly said "REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT", and caused the AO-40 propulsion system to self-destruct when activated. But dang it all, people should stop carping about the number, complexity, and even frequencies of the transponders that were placed aboard AO-40, because NONE of that had ANYTHING to do with the reason it failed. In fact, as I've said before, and has fallen on deaf ears before (or maybe it's on blind eyes), the COMPLEXITY of AO-40 is what SAVED it at all, made it usable at all, for the short time we had her around to enjoy. One transponder is blown up, switch over to a different one. Etc.
Call the AMSAT builders "incompetent" as many times as you want, it does not change one ugly fact. If you want a high earth orbit satellite (and I most certainly DO), IT MUST BE A COMPLEX DEVICE. ROCKET PROPULSION SYSTEMS ARE COMPLEX, BEST UNDERSTOOD BY ROCKET SCIENTISTS, AND YOU WILL NEVER GET TO H.E.O. WITHOUT ONE.
So, either stop whining that you want an H.E.O. satellite, or stop whining about wanting a satellite that is not complex. We either get the training/education/experience that allows us to "get it right", or we abandon the task and take up knitting. Or we keep stumbling around in the dark making lots of expensive mistakes. But as Scottie told Captain Kirk, "I'm sorry captain! I canna change the laws of physics!" A satellite in high earth orbit is a complex device.
And talk about having their heads inserted into their anal orifices, we have people saying, in essence, "you people are too stupid to make a complex high-earth-orbit satellite work", and at the same time, "you people are foolish to invest any energy into educating students about satellite technology", or even worse, "you are foolish to try to take students who are already interested in satellite technology and get them excited about the possibility of using that technology for non-commercial (i.e., AMATEUR) radio communications". Give me a break. Maybe one of those folks, a REAL rocket scientist, will someday be the person who leads us amateurs to success.
It all boils down to this. There is a nearly infinite number of non-productive choices that do not further the cause of progress. There are three fundamental choices that DO lead to progress: 1) LEAD 2) FOLLOW 3) GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY AND LET SOMEONE ELSE DO IT
73 de WØJT _______________________________________________ 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: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4364 (20090824) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4364 (20090824) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
John...nice try, thats the old straw man argument
And talk about having their heads inserted into their anal orifices, we have people saying, in essence, "you people are too stupid to make a complex high-earth-orbit satellite work", and at the same time, "you people are foolish to invest any energy into educating students about satellite technology", or even worse, "you are foolish to try to take students who are already interested in satellite technology and get them excited about the possibility of using that technology for non-commercial (i.e., AMATEUR) radio communications". Give me a break. Maybe one of those folks, a REAL rocket scientist, will someday be the person who leads us amateurs to success.
all the "cliches" that you quote aside I'll try one "A person has got to know their limitations"...and any organization that allows a "remove before flight" flag to stay on in flight is not dealing with their limitations. Indeed in the real world, pilots are grounded permanently for taking off with one of those flapping.
my entire point is that AMSAT ought to fly vehicles in concert with the limitations of the capabilities of the folks who are building them...not in concert with their imagination
anyway this thread is as I noted pretty well talked out. Hopefully the space shuttle can launch without the foam coming off and banging the vehicle.
Robert WB5MZO
_________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:W...
Rocky Jones wrote:
John...nice try, thats the old straw man argument
The irony of this statement is rich.
all the "cliches" that you quote aside I'll try one "A person has got to know their limitations"...and any organization that allows a "remove before flight" flag to stay on in flight is not dealing with their limitations. Indeed in the real world, pilots are grounded permanently for taking off with one of those flapping.
"But Marge! Trying is the first step toward failure!"
So, if Robert was in charge in the 1960s, Earth would have likely not made it beyond LEO, if gotten that far. But, just think: We would have NEVER failed!
One has to hope the Robert's wife was in charge of teaching his kids how to ride their bikes.
my entire point is that AMSAT ought to fly vehicles in concert with the limitations of the capabilities of the folks who are building them...not in concert with their imagination
Robert, if you are truly worried about something dooming AMSAT to failure, you can appreciate how this statement, if followed, would do it. AMSAT is one of the few bright spots in "pushing the envelope" of Amateur radio. By artificially boxing people with the vague statement of "Whoa there! We can't do that! We need to know our limits!" just marginalizes AMSAT.
anyway this thread is as I noted pretty well talked out. Hopefully the space shuttle can launch without the foam coming off and banging the vehicle.
And what the hell does this have to do with SuitlessSat at ALL?
Ben...
"
"But Marge! Trying is the first step toward failure!"
your argument/position is one that NASA tots out all the time to explain why they have lost two space shuttles "we are pushing the unknown".
Not so much.
Had Columbia been lost on its first few flights because there was something "not understood" about tripping the Mach/reynolds numbers coming from vacumn and 17,500 mph and ballistic flight to near sea level and 220 kts and "lift" (sorry to mix) then it would have been sad but then again that is what test flying is all about. The ground around Edwards and Pax River is littered with holes dug by Aviators/pilots trying to figure those things out. See Glenn Edwards and The Flying Wing. A noted astronaut (and a very good test pilot) died as he uncovered a problem with a very popular homebuilt...and a lot of "regular pilots" fly safe because of it.
Columbia was lost because the folks at NASA and shuttle ops confused "bold" and "reckless" and continued to fly with a known malfunction that could destroy the vehicle. Thats reckless.. The folks at Buffalo killed their passengers because they didnt follow approved procedures. thats reckless
there is no cloaking that "to boldy go where no one has gone before".
So, if Robert was in charge in the 1960s, Earth would have likely not made it beyond LEO, if gotten that far. But, just think: We would have NEVER failed!
odd you bring up Apollo.
Apollo was a stunt. As Gene Krantz said immediatly after Armstrong/et al got on the Hornet "lets stop". It was a political effort the equivalent of "war" and it came well before the infrastructure of human spaceflight could support continued efforts
http://thespacereview.com/article/1448/1
my friend Jim Oberg and I do not agree on everything but this is not all that bad an analysis
One has to hope the Robert's wife was in charge of teaching his kids how to ride their bikes...
my saintly wife did that actually. When the girls were mature and ready to ride bikes I was in the Mideast. Slugger also taught the kids to drive, I was in Russia. I however taught the kids aerobatics...and while sadly my (by then) late wife could not be there, was on the deck of the CVN with their grandfather...when they finished flight training.
They are now pushing fighters on and off of the "Gipper" They are pretty acquainted with the difference between bold and reckless.
Robert, if you are truly worried about something dooming AMSAT to failure, you can appreciate how this statement, if followed, would do it. AMSAT is one of the few bright spots in "pushing the envelope" of Amateur radio.
thats subjective.
Robert WB5MZO
_________________________________________________________________ Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHY...
participants (8)
-
Art McBride -
Ben Jackson -
Daniel Schultz -
i8cvs -
John P. Toscano -
Ken Ernandes -
Rocky Jones -
Tim Lilley