Bob N4HY wrote:
Thanks to the efforts of Lee McLamb, EVP AMSAT, we discovered a new opportunity to get our communications packages and antennas on board Intelsat launches.
Wayne W9AE replies:
Is this for a "piggyback" communication package attached to a larger satellite, or a secondary payload that deploys separately?
Wayne Estes W9AE Oakland, Oregon, USA, CN83ik
Wayne Estes wrote:
Bob N4HY wrote:
Thanks to the efforts of Lee McLamb, EVP AMSAT, we discovered a new opportunity to get our communications packages and antennas on board Intelsat launches.
Wayne W9AE replies:
Is this for a "piggyback" communication package attached to a larger satellite, or a secondary payload that deploys separately?
Wayne Estes W9AE Oakland, Oregon, USA, CN83ik
Intelsat offers both! We are asking for Piggy back for us and will ask for secondary payload should it be required for P3E.
We just have to face some very very hard realities. There has not been a high earth orbit bird from us for years because of the lack of launches available to us. We have to be creative to get them launched. We are attempting to do exactly that. In our case, what makes us attractive to funding is piggyback.
Bob
At 05:26 AM 10/30/2007, Robert McGwier wrote:
First, I have to say this is fantastic!
Intelsat offers both! We are asking for Piggy back for us and will ask for secondary payload should it be required for P3E.
I'm curious why they're going for it. What's in it for Intelsat? Not being picky, just curious how it looks from their perspective.
We just have to face some very very hard realities. There has not been a high earth orbit bird from us for years because of the lack of launches available to us. We have to be creative to get them launched. We are attempting to do exactly that. In our case, what makes us attractive to funding is piggyback.
A fantastic effort from all involved no doubt. I'm certainly looking forward to these sats seeing the light of day. And as for linking, I agree that Earth -> Sat -> Earth -> Sat -> Earth (as opposed to Earth -> Sat -> Sat -> Earth) is going to be easier to manage in the longer run. keep the complicated bits on the ground where they can be serviced. :) Also means we don't need another set of antennas pointing out into space.
73 de VK3JED http://vkradio.com
Several months ago we were made aware of a shift in policy in the United States government that now has potential to have a lot of impact. Almost no one knew of it but Rick and I went to the Pentagon and went pretty deep inside and talked to people who knew this policy was about to be pushed out the door. The U.S. government is a large subsidizer of the launcher business in the US since it uses a lot of them. The DoD grew tired of having lots and lots of excess capacity on board vehicles they paid for but unused when a bit of fuel could allow them to carry extra payloads. They started making loud noises about making it have the force of law or regulation that these things had to have secondary payloads on them for U.S. paid for launches. The commercial satellite vendors rapidly stepped in to fill this with ways for them to get paid for this!
In addition to this, if we consume solar energy efficiently and radiate it RF, we are a help to them and the amount of energy becomes significant over 15 years!
As always, we will have to argue a business case for ourselves that includes more than just paying a big fee, but you can begin to take direction on your thinking from my comments. There are others doing this as well.
Bob
Tony Langdon wrote:
At 05:26 AM 10/30/2007, Robert McGwier wrote:
First, I have to say this is fantastic!
Intelsat offers both! We are asking for Piggy back for us and will ask for secondary payload should it be required for P3E.
I'm curious why they're going for it. What's in it for Intelsat? Not being picky, just curious how it looks from their perspective.
We just have to face some very very hard realities. There has not been a high earth orbit bird from us for years because of the lack of launches available to us. We have to be creative to get them launched. We are attempting to do exactly that. In our case, what makes us attractive to funding is piggyback.
A fantastic effort from all involved no doubt. I'm certainly looking forward to these sats seeing the light of day. And as for linking, I agree that Earth -> Sat -> Earth -> Sat -> Earth (as opposed to Earth -> Sat -> Sat -> Earth) is going to be easier to manage in the longer run. keep the complicated bits on the ground where they can be serviced. :) Also means we don't need another set of antennas pointing out into space.
73 de VK3JED http://vkradio.com
At 10:38 AM 10/30/2007, Robert McGwier wrote:
As always, we will have to argue a business case for ourselves that includes more than just paying a big fee, but you can begin to take direction on your thinking from my comments. There are others doing this as well.
That makes perfect sense. I can see where the sudden willingness comes from now. :-)
73 de VK3JED http://vkradio.com
On Monday 29 October 2007 17:07:53 Tony Langdon wrote:
At 05:26 AM 10/30/2007, Robert McGwier wrote:
First, I have to say this is fantastic!
Intelsat offers both! We are asking for Piggy back for us and will ask for secondary payload should it be required for P3E.
I'm curious why they're going for it. What's in it for Intelsat? Not being picky, just curious how it looks from their perspective.
In addition to the policy issues Bob mentioned, the biggest change is that the launch vehicles have gotten significantly larger. They've grown and standardized to the point where the price/kg to orbit is not so much driven by mass but by engineering and production costs. The result is that Intelsat can host payloads of our expected mass without having to off load a compensating amount of fuel. Since they can launch fully fueled the impact to the spacecraft lifetime and their ability to generate revenue is minimized.
During my talk at the Symposium I used the WGS and AEHF satellite programs as examples of GTO launches with excess capacity. They have 1500 lbs and 1000 lbs respectively and there will be multiple flights of each. So there are also other avenues being explored as well.
73, Lee-KU4OS
At 11:40 AM 10/30/2007, Lee McLamb wrote:
In addition to the policy issues Bob mentioned, the biggest change is that the launch vehicles have gotten significantly larger. They've grown and standardized to the point where the price/kg to orbit is not so much driven by mass but by engineering and production costs. The result is that Intelsat can host payloads of our expected mass without having to off load a compensating amount of fuel. Since they can launch fully fueled the impact to the spacecraft lifetime and their ability to generate revenue is minimized.
Sounds almost like the wheel has turned full circle and ham payloads are able to take advantage of unused launcher and payload space again. Looking forward to seeing how this piggybacking on Intelsat works out. :)
During my talk at the Symposium I used the WGS and AEHF satellite programs as examples of GTO launches with excess capacity. They have 1500 lbs and 1000 lbs respectively and there will be multiple flights of each. So there are also other avenues being explored as well.
That sounds promising too.. :)
73 de VK3JED http://vkradio.com
participants (4)
-
Lee McLamb -
Robert McGwier -
Tony Langdon -
Wayne Estes