Fw: Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:05:42 To: Rocky Jones[email protected] Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
This note is based on an almost complete ignorance of both projects. On AO40 a signature on a checkout document at launch site says motor was checked by those responsible. The checkout document (not amsat's) reveals that the necessary mod to doc revealing need to do an extra operation was not present. Result: crap happens. Everything tested before motor burn seemed fine. Don't know many craft that could take this amd go on to deliver years of service. We all cry over the lost opportunity but it was still a major achievement.
Suitsat 1 worked before transport. It was tested. We will never know what went wrong in transit.
I understand everyone's desire for more and better results but before you level a cannon, at least know what you are talking about.
73's Bob n4hy
------Original Message------ From: Rocky Jones Sender: [email protected] To: [email protected] To: amsat bb Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) Sent: Aug 23, 2009 1:38 PM
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... _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
I planned to stay out of this but I would like to know what --
"On AO40 a signature on a checkout document at launch site says motor was checked by those responsible. The checkout document (not amsat's) reveals that the necessary mod to doc revealing need to do an extra operation was not present."
means exactly.
The first sentence is pretty clear, but the second one is fuzzy. Does it mean no one modified the document to explain another operation was needed before launch?
Thanks, Joe
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 1:07 PM To: amsat bb Subject: [amsat-bb] Fw: Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:05:42 To: Rocky Jones[email protected] Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
This note is based on an almost complete ignorance of both projects. On AO40 a signature on a checkout document at launch site says motor was checked by those responsible. The checkout document (not amsat's) reveals that the necessary mod to doc revealing need to do an extra operation was not present. Result: crap happens. Everything tested before motor burn seemed fine. Don't know many craft that could take this amd go on to deliver years of service. We all cry over the lost opportunity but it was still a major achievement.
Suitsat 1 worked before transport. It was tested. We will never know what went wrong in transit.
I understand everyone's desire for more and better results but before you level a cannon, at least know what you are talking about.
73's Bob n4hy
------Original Message------ From: Rocky Jones Sender: [email protected] To: [email protected] To: amsat bb Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) Sent: Aug 23, 2009 1:38 PM
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
_________________________________________________________________ HotmailR 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 M_HYGN_faster:082009 _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
_______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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
participants (2)
-
Gary "Joe" Mayfield -
rwmcgwier＠gmail.com