I speak as a relative newcomer to the world of amateur satellites but suffice to say, I am totally immersed in them now!

My thoughts are that whilst it would/will be nice to have an HEO, it is imperative that we replace those easy sats that are coming to the end of their lives or risk losing a whole new generation of amateurs who like me will stand in the parking lot of a hamfest one Saturday morning while Drew gives a demonstration and say to themselves, "Wow, that's cool"!

AO-27 is MIA, FO-29 was rescued thankfully. More recently we learn that DO-64 will not be available....these are the birds that we should concentrate on replacing!

Newcomers will spend a little extra to be able to work FM and SSB LEO's but surely no-one is expecting people to spend a lot of dollars on microwave stuff for a bird that might not a) make it to orbit or b) work properly or at all.

I would be prepared to donate $1000 for a share in getting another FM or SSB bird up as soon as possible and then once one, maybe two are up there then worry about an HEO.

The way things are going it seems unlikely that an HEO is going to get up in my lifetime and by then all the LEO's will have gone anyway. The LEO's are our bread and butter so to speak, the HEO's are the caviar!

Just my two cents!

David KG4ZLB/M0ZLB www.kg4zlb.com

Bruce Robertson wrote:

Bob:

I don't think the information is lacking, it's just that the situation has not changed much. As I understand it, we face this predicament: we cannot find a cut-rate ride to HEO, and we cannot reasonably expect to collect funds from our members to pay for a full-cost ride to HEO. This is a result of the full commercialization of launches, wherein space is a business first and foremost, and each launch is something to be sold for its maximum value. When that takes place, our heavy HEO birds are very hard to pay for.

Avenues are, as they say, being explored. AMSAT-DL is talking to its government space agency to see if they would like to help fund P3E and P5 as a package, and they're talking to SpaceX, which might want to have an experimental payload on a Falcon9 launch. It must be hard, frustrating work, and I appreciate their doing it.

Meanwhile, AMSAT-NA is really thinking outside the box, asking "what if we just buy a small parcel of an existing launch?" That's what the IntelSat GEO idea is about. Now as I understand it, the discount here is in the fact that we're not launching our own boost motor, spaceframe, etc. Instead we make some circuits, some antennas, and they get put on some spare space and get given some power. So we can't assume that 2m and 70cm are a given here: their antennas, for instance, take up quite a bit of space, weigh more, etc.

Those microwave bands, however, might just be the ticket. I don't think it is fair to assume that those working on this are going in that direction out of a desire for the new or cool; as I see it, they're just trying to deal with this new reality. The hard truth is that it might be more realistic for all of us to switch to different bands than for us to hold out for a HEO/GEO opportunity using the equipment we have now.

I know the following is something some of us do not want to hear, but this new economic reality also has presented us (and others) with some interesting opportunities in LEO. The Cubesat concept works by paying full-price for the launch, but for a smaller amount of weight than was possible in the past. I've heard launch prices quoted at $40,000! (Let's say a 3x cube like Delfi3C costs $150,000 for launch. This group, right here, could design its own communication satellite and launch it if there are 149 more people like me who would give $1000 for the pleasure of being part of such a venture! JoAnn started a threat that explored such an idea. It really could be a possibility.)

I wonder, could we work within these parameters to make a bird that would functionally replace AO-7? That altitude seems to me much more pleasing for communications.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 4:41 PM, w7lrd@comcast.net wrote:

the Presidents Club fu nding, and can be found on many of our satellites. I build and sell antennas and send a portion of those proceeds to AMSAT. I believe I have earned the right to complain. I have read the background of many of our members and BOD, we indeed have many very smart educated people in high places. Am I naive about the details? No doubt. I'm just a retired old ham with a back yard full of unuseable antennas, and a lack of comprehenson about what is going on (or not). If this diatribe is all wet I can take the slings and arrows. Talk to me about it on AO-7.

---

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

At 04:28 PM 2/6/2009, Rocky Jones wrote:

Bob...Your "rant" strikes me as pretty close to right on the money. I read the missive in the latest journal about 3.3 and 5.6 ghz links and thought "thats nice, It will never happen".

A baseline requrement for ANY Amateur satellites should be that they work on frequencies and modulation methods which are consistent with radios that are already commercially manufactured for the bands in question...or can use some very easily (think the MDS converters) commercial gear for other services.

The instant the "bird" is designed with some type of radio in mind that does not exist now and is limited to that bird...then the entire adventure is nice but has little practical value.

Why on earth is the AMSAT community wasting time on a design which requires a ground station that is (by the latest Amsat Journal) "beyond the scope of most hams". Instead of spending time working on making an 'acp capable earth station within the reach of most radio amateurs".

Because if the equipment has little value beyond a satellite which could do an Oscar 40 at any time how many are going to shell out the money?

I dont have a clue why the AMSAT design folks seem to think that it isnecessary to drive up into the microwave frequencies. They never seem to answer the question why a 2meter 70cm translator is not a good solution...and the one that we really need.

Meanwhile AO-7 flies on.

Robert WB5MZO life member

Well, there are a few reasons: 1- 2m & 70cm antennas are large and it takes a large satellite to support them 2- Microwave antennas are physically smaller and yet will provide more gain 3- Microwave frequencies are quieter (low sky noise) so they work better with low noise receivers; some mw freqs. are less impacted by interference and/or pirate stations.

When such a mw satellite can be launched, many sources of equipment will surface. Downeast Microwave and Kuhne Electronics will come out with equipment when there is a market for them.

73, Ed - KL7UW

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Gary Joe Mayfield gary_mayfield@hotmail.com wrote:

The microwave thing always gets me though. If the antennas are too big how come they can get them on cube sats? I know the correct statement is high-gain antennas are too big. The problem is gain antennas need some pointing mechanism (complicated and expensive) and they need to be pointed no matter what band they are designed for. When using omni antennas the lower frequency will yield higher performance due to lower path loss....

CubeSats buzz around 180 miles over your head. At apogee, AO-13 was 23,000 miles from the ground.

That's why the gain antennas were needed and when you add up the power required for a transponder to handle lots of stations at the same time, then the link budgets and antenna sizes (for more gain) at higher frequencies begin to make a LOT more sense.

The tightrope the developers walked was always how to deliver performance on frequencies that stubborn members demanded always be used. The S-mode stuff held much promise with AO-40. James Miller, G3RUH presented all the superior reasons for S-mode (the paper is still in the archives) but for a large percentage of members it was always "2 meters on the downlink or I will withhold funding".

Just like those who raise a stink now whenever almost anything is proposed requiring more than a fifteen year old dual band handheld and an Arrow antenna...

Sigh.

As has been hinted around this thread, our problems are almost 100% self-inflicted. We have shot our toes off until we have none left to shoot. I don't blame the leadership -- this "club" contains some of the most stubborn individuals in all of hamdom. Perhaps if AMSAT can stick around long enough, the naysayers will all eventually die off and we can move forward with reality instead of dreamy-eyed reminiscing about days gone by and what might have been.

Jeff, KE9V AMSAT-NA AMSAT-DL

I usually tend to keep quiet during arguements such as this, but I need to chime in on this one.

I live in a location that frowns upon antennas. I was able to put up a mode V/u as well as S band antenna to get me on AO-51. This antenna has 3 ele on 2m, 6 ele on 70 cm, and the S band antenna is a 18 inch long yagi.

This system is way too small for a GEO or HEO bird. I was on AO-10 + 13 when they were up. My 2M was 22 ele crossed yagi, and a 10 turn 70 cm helix. Very large antennas compared to what I'm using now.

I'm not certain, but I believe I would be able to receive an S band SSB signal with my current S band receive setup from a geo sync orbit.

There is a law of physics that states that if the antenna size remains the same and the frequency increases, the signal strength will also increase. Notice I said antenna SIZE not GAIN, because as the frequency goes up and the antenna remains the same size, the gain will overtake the increased path loss. I understand the reason for having to use microwaves for rideshare birds. Thing is, the microwaves give you a distinct advantage, and that is a stronger signal and less noise. the cost for that? some new equipment.

I recently bought myself a new laptop. It wasnt a very high end unit, about $600. I really didnt NEED it, but the same money would have bought me a new microwave band and had money left over. Reason I didnt get the transverter? lack of activity. If a satellite would have been launched, hey, guess what I would have bought instead? yep, you guessed it... A new DX band!

Lets say 5760 is used on an upcoming bird. Ground station with a 19 inch dish with a simple homebrew feed will have almost 30 dB of gain! thats 100 times more signal than your 2 meter arrow, and the antenna is a lot smaller!

By the way, I hold VUCC on terrestrial 10 GHz, so I think I have some idea as to what I'm talking about.

Michael Heim ARS KD0AR Amsat 36924

--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Jeff Davis ke9vee@gmail.com wrote:

From: Jeff Davis ke9vee@gmail.com Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: HEO naïveté To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 11:10 AM On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Gary Joe Mayfield gary_mayfield@hotmail.com wrote:

...

The microwave thing always gets me though. If the

antennas are too big how

...

come they can get them on cube sats? I know the

correct statement is

...

high-gain antennas are too big. The problem is gain

antennas need some

...

pointing mechanism (complicated and expensive) and

they need to be pointed

...

no matter what band they are designed for. When using

omni antennas the

...

lower frequency will yield higher performance due to

lower path loss....

CubeSats buzz around 180 miles over your head. At apogee, AO-13 was 23,000 miles from the ground.

That's why the gain antennas were needed and when you add up the power required for a transponder to handle lots of stations at the same time, then the link budgets and antenna sizes (for more gain) at higher frequencies begin to make a LOT more sense.

The tightrope the developers walked was always how to deliver performance on frequencies that stubborn members demanded always be used. The S-mode stuff held much promise with AO-40. James Miller, G3RUH presented all the superior reasons for S-mode (the paper is still in the archives) but for a large percentage of members it was always "2 meters on the downlink or I will withhold funding".

Just like those who raise a stink now whenever almost anything is proposed requiring more than a fifteen year old dual band handheld and an Arrow antenna...

Sigh.

As has been hinted around this thread, our problems are almost 100% self-inflicted. We have shot our toes off until we have none left to shoot. I don't blame the leadership -- this "club" contains some of the most stubborn individuals in all of hamdom. Perhaps if AMSAT can stick around long enough, the naysayers will all eventually die off and we can move forward with reality instead of dreamy-eyed reminiscing about days gone by and what might have been.

Jeff, KE9V AMSAT-NA AMSAT-DL _______________________________________________ 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

Bear with me as I try to clear up some misunderstanding about the frequencies proposed for the GEO rideshare proposal. Hopefully Tom will chime in here if and when I get something wrong; the proposal was his. As he will probably tell you I was not his biggest supporter, but I think I've come to understand why he made the choices he did. Keep in mind Tom's proposal was just that, a proposal. Even he described it as a strawman proposal.

There were a few different driving factors for this rideshare proposal. One was the real estate available to us. We were offered a few boxy shaped areas on the order of 12 to 18 inches on a side, the exact numbers escape me. There would not have been much room for any sort of gain antenna for lower frequencies, which unlike a cubesat, is really required at GEO altitudes and amateur array sizes and typical power levels.

A second driving factor was funding. The initial suggested costs rapidly grew to the point where this could not be accomplished strictly with amateur funding, and we would have to solicit support from a governmental agency. We would need a carrot for them to justify their funding, and that carrot was emergency communications. The usefulness of such a system would require that some decent amount of data be moved, and the required groundstation be small and portable. An additional factor was the assumption that a ground station using a small dish might also be useful for allowing hams in CC&R restricted homes to participate on the sly outside of times of emergencies, by masqerading as a TVRO dish as protected by FCC rule. (I personally had reservations about this last line line of thinking regarding CC&Rs and the TVRO exemptions).

There was also concern about interference to the primary spacecraft frequencies, so the frequencies suggested were driven by what were hoped would provide the least amount of possible interference to our landlords on the satellite. Any interference at all would probably mean the end of our mission.

As discussions progressed, there was some dissension among the BOD about the frequencies chosen and the digital versus analog issues. Tom revised the microwave system design to include both analog and digital modes. More link analysis by others showed we could possibly go as low as 1.2 GHz and 435 MHz for some services, but not at the same ground station size or the same amount of bandwidth. These would likely have been analog systems, and their inclusion may have been to the detriment of the microwave services that were the carrot -that would pay for the launch-. Frequency selection was a big catch-22.

Warning, more of my personal opinion ahead! In the end, it was a mostly moot exercise because our landlord found another tenant for the immediate launch who could pay the rent out of pocket. We may have additional opportunities down the road, but the price tag will not likely ever get smaller. We realized we have not much experience at going to government for financial supoort, and that will have to be addressed before we try this again. We'll need someone who knows how to write grant proposals to help us. If this is you, please directly contact one or all of the senior leadership. I personally am also not sure we have the manpower to commit to a large short-fuse project.

Some good things did come out of this exercise. As a result AMSAT has an engineering task force who is now coordinating the creation and cataloging of individual modules that can be used to seize very short term opportunities for flight. Personally, I envision us placing secondary packages on larger, funded satellites, as the best way to orbit in the future. A transponder on a GPS satellite, or a FM repeater on a university nanosat, or a digipeater on a cubesat...this I believe is our widest and most direct path to the orbit. We should also expand on leveraging our capabilities as a distributed telemetry collection service as a means to acquire space for secondary packages for our own use. Delfi C-3 is a good analog of what our future with the cubesat community should look like.

Meanwhile, there are several of us who are very active in trying to identify these flight opportunities, but we could use more help. We have a few things in the works, one of which is not LEO, but we are not at a point were we could discuss them openly. ( A favorite saying of mine, first rule of fight club is we don't talk about fight club, at least until we think it's safe) We have many members that work in aerospace and if you are one of them and you think there may be an opportunity to fly a package on one of your projects, PLEASE contact myself or one of our other officers directly.

To the other BOD members and involved parties, I apologize if you think I have misrepresented anything; please feel free to offer corrections directly to the group.

73, Drew KO4MA AMSAT-NA VP Operations and Director

At 09:25 AM 2/7/2009, Art McBride wrote:

With the political climate focused on jump starting the economy AMSAT should work on a bailout ride for three HEO's, it's our kids money anyway! Art, KC6UQH

==snip==assuming everyone read the previous postings, anyway

He! He! Well, I expect some attempt at humor by Art, but I would say he might not be too far off with this. Consider that there will be a need to generate jobs in the upcoming economic recovery. Perhaps our HEO's funded primarily as EmComm satellites with ham radio on board, could hire out of work aerospace engineers, thus accomplishing some of our national goals along with some of our AMSAT goals. Again, having the "pitch-man/woman" to promote this with congress and the gov't will be a key to success. Perhaps there are some out of work lobbyist out there?

I know a gal named "Sarah" that might put in a good word if there is any media attention to be had ;-)

I now return the -bb to normal programing, already in progress!

*********************************************************** 73, Ed - KL7UW BP40iq, 6m - 3cm 144-EME: FT-847, mgf-1801, 4x-xp20, 8877-600w 1296-EME: DEMI-Xvtr, 0.30 dBNF, 4.9m dish, 60/300W (not QRV) http://www.kl7uw.com AK VHF-Up Group NA Rep. for DUBUS: dubususa@hotmail.com ***********************************************************

1. Do we have any reasonable expectation of government funding? The

repeater group that I belong to in Houston is in the process of getting a FEMA grant based on the repeater/packet system >performance in Ike...ie we stayed up while the FEMA equipment colocated went dark. It has been "nip and tuck" and the election of a congressman from our district who some of us participated in his >campaign has helped a great deal...but it isnt "all" that much money at least in terms of what I suspect AMSAT was looking at.

I'm not sure. I think the lower the number, the more likely we could get some of the Homeland Security money that flowed freely up until this recent economic downturn. Some have argued that we would need to show significant technological advances to be eligible for really substantial grants. To quote someone for whom I have great respect, "The only sure way not to fail is to do nothing."

2. even if we got the money and got the launch ...how does it change the

equation for the satellite community? It puts "equipment in the air" but would the "unique" equipment required be a show stopper >like the "spread spectrum" satellite (PANSAT?) that was launched a few years ago.

Tom's last revision had both analog and digital modes. The analog could be on your doorstep a few days after you hung up with DEMI or Kuhne. Digital would have been developed in parallel with the satellite hardware. The balance between the two modes would be able to follow the demand.

3. I think that the "easy sat goal" is a "canard"...I think that it could

be as easy to talk on the birds as it is for me to type this letter to you...and it wouldnt change the amateur satellite population all that

...

much...but I do think that the other end is a limiting factor. If hams

have to buy some "special box" that is the heart and soul of the station and has zero use outside of the "bird"...then I dont think that is a

...

measure for growth.

I would not agree with this. Look at the users we have on AO-51 (easy) compared to AO-7 (hard). The trick is getting them to support the program. We have way too many users who don't think it's worthwhile to support the program.

If SpaceX granted us a ride on its Falcon 9 which might go this summer...is there anything to put on it?

It would depend on where it was going. To GTO I'd say we'd do all we could to get over our ITAR issues and get P3E onboard, if the Germans would agree. To LEO? That would depend on the orbit, whether we could justify the expense for a low orbit bird, whether it had the support of the membership, and whether it forwarded our goals. If someone said we have a space going to 800km or higher, I'd like to think we'd be all over it in one form or another.You know someone? ;-)

73, Drew KO4MA

Rocky,

May I add a little historical perspective (as I understand it) about AO-40 (Inserted):

At 10:47 AM 2/8/2009, Rocky Jones wrote:

...

73, Drew KO4MA

Drew and the group Thanks again for your well thought out reply. I would just respond with a few things that had "I" been in the board meeting I would have said.

1. I don't think that appealing to "the young people" or the

"computer generation" is a viable means to increase our ranks. First off the "kids" (under 25 for me) of today almost have unlimited data transfer capability with cell type equipment...and that is going to do nothing but grow even during an economic turndown. My twin girls on their "youngster cruise" were continually sending back "video's" of their experience, even on the boat. And that was a few years ago.

My impression is that the market is the same as it has always been...kids who get interested in "radio" (not computers) and parents who have the time and money to spare in such an activity. I think that there is some validity in the "how difficult is it to get on the satellite" metric...but I think one reason that the LEO FM birds are what they are an Oscar 7is what it is in terms of people is that the equipment for the LEO FM birds is acquirable for under 200 dollars AND has uses other places...

Probably the best reason they are called "Easy Sats"...easy on wallet and effort.

2. In other words Ithink that the issue with the sats is primarily

the cost of acquisition of equipment AND what its use is when the sats are not "up" (or working). No science or polls behind that...just my viewpoint.

3. Where I think that hamsats went off the wrong end was AO-40....it

was to many eggs in one basket, to much money was spent on the "supersat" and far far to much was expected in terms of technical expertise of the staff that was putting it together. I realize one cannot get to the orbit the bird was designed for without propulsion, but it is clear that propulsion is rocket science and that was the fatal flaw of 40...or probably any "amateur effort"...unless we get some very talented volunteer "rocket scientist".

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. What you didn't state (and may not be aware of) was AO-40 was developed at a time when a nearly free ride existed for a big sat. Having that opportunity, I'm guessing that the thought was to try to lift as much capability as could be accomplished with money and technical resources. The concept was a wonderful "does-everything" satellite. The failures apparently are attributable to the rocket engine failures, and not with electronics (I generalize here).

So if AO-40 were still working or better yet fully functional, all this monday morning quaterbacking would exist. I did worry about the complication factor of trying to do so much in one satellite. But it was done in a time when the ride was available (now we see how rare and short that existed).

Without a ride to the appropriate orbit that might be the fatal link in any future HEO. But in any event more smaller birds to me make more sense then "one big one". And if we cannot get that for various reasons...more AO-7's in my view are the answer.

The main obstacle is not big vs small, but how to launch anything. Launch availability drives what can be done or considered. Keeping this in mind the current effort toward building blocks that can be rapidly assembled for custom designs to respond to a launch offer, is a good approach...Sort of a spin off the cube-sat philosophy.

Oh well I learned a long time ago that the joy in life was changing the things you could change and just dealing with what one cannot...and that for me just is using the sats that are 'there' and having a ball at it.

thanks again for your time and allowing me to bend your ear. I use to be The President of my Community Association so I realize what a thankless job you and the AMSAT board have.

Robert

73, Ed - KL7UW QRV 80m - 3cm AMSAT #3212

On Feb 8, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Rocky Jones wrote:

2. In other words Ithink that the issue with the sats is primarily

the cost of acquisition of equipment AND what its use is when the sats are not "up" (or working). No science or polls behind that...just my viewpoint.

One of the benefits of a Mode A bird when we had them up was that most hams already had the rigs needed to operate it. HF for the 10M down link and a keyed HT for the uplink. Sure the note was chirpy and sometimes worse, but it did demonstrate what one could do without additional investment. Particularly on QRP days. Remember those?

I got in to satellite on the cheap. In 1980 I bought a used Ameco TX-62 and accompanying VFO for $50, paired it with my FT101E and had a blast on Mode A through the 80s with AO-7, AO-8 and a number of RS birds. Home brew antennas were and are cheap. Later a homebrew preamp helped the anemic FT101E.

Well there are no more predictable Mode A birds. AO-7 gets up in Mode A when it feels like it and the loud RS birds appear to be forever gone.

But I digress, I put together a Mode J/Mode B station with a $200 TR-9130 and a $150 FT-780R. Again homemade antennas, this time WA5VJB Yagis, and I was on the air. That is not a significant investment.

I later picked up an FT290/FT490 pair for $125 each and they make a good pair to operate the satellites. Even later I picked up an FT480R to go with the FT780R for $75. Used gear is not that expensive if you shop around for it. By the way, the 480/780 pair are very nice for the FM birds as they will tune in 1 kHz steps, nicely compensating for Doppler.

An $35 AIDF converter added S band.

So the bargains are out there if one looks and is patient. And if people kept their old gear when they upgraded and loaned it out to newcomers who express an interest in the satellites, that would help too.

The VHF CW and SSB gear have use beyond the satellites. Weak signal VHF and UHF work is quite challenging. VHF/UHF contesting is a blast. Activity nights are held in most places so that is a place to look for encouragement when the satellites are below the horizon.

-- KK6MC James Duffey Cedar Crest NM

Oscars 10 and 13 handled the propulsion issues without mishap. Oscar 40's mishap was human error, not a lack of design expertese.

Rocky Jones wrote: I realize one cannot get to the orbit the bird was designed for without propulsion, but it is clear that propulsion is rocket science and that was the fatal flaw of 40...or probably any "amateur effort"...unless we get some very talented volunteer "rocket scientist".

Paul Williamson wrote:

"The first burn went relatively well -- there was a small deviation from the expected burn duration, which placed the spacecraft perigee somewhat higher

than planned. The second burn could not be accomplished because a slow leak in the high-pressure helium system during the week the spacecraft was being reoriented prevented the opening of valves feeding fuel to the thrust assembly."

The "small deviation" is known to be due to a design error in the simple digital logic circuit that controlled the burn duration.

OK. The helium leak was a propulsion system fault. The design error in the logic was human error and is known so can be designed out.

On AO-13, the kick motor worked exactly as planned, and the spacecraft achieved the intended orbit. But that orbit could have been chosen better,

as it turned out. The early re-entry after only 8.5 years was not anticipated, and probably could have been avoided if we had been smart enough, soon enough.

Another "human error" Hindsight is wonderful. I don't think we should reject an option that requires propulsion because of past errors that are now well understood.

Rocky Jones wrote:

...

Another "human error" Hindsight is wonderful. I don't think we should reject an option that requires propulsion because of past errors that are now well understood.

-- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Nigel A. Gunn. G8IFF W8IFF (was KC8NHF) 1865 El Camino Drive, Xenia, OH 45385-1115, USA 937 825 5032

Nigel..."Xenia..." been there...lovely place

What would concern me about propulsion is the fact that these are errors (which are I think systemic) of not being able to understand a process and design out the errors.

I've never read (that doesnt mean it doesnt exist I have just never read it) that a really good understanding of what happened on AO40 exist...but what I have read is that it is a lot like the gear pins...

If you are only learning from mistakes and not proactively avoiding problems by design and practice, that is a real issue as Rocky says. Have all the possible problems with propulsion been identified, and there is a process or practice to control them? Probably not. So, there either has to be an effort made to make sure that there will be no catastrophic problems, or there has to be a plan for dealing with them in the design which will keep them from impacting other parts of the system.

Gregg Wonderly W5GGW

Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 23:48:55 +0100> From: peter.guelzow@kourou.de> To: amsat-bb@amsat.org> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare frequency choice, etc.>

Peter...thanks for your complete (and interesting) run down on the various propulsion issues on 10, 13, and 40....

There is no doubt that "10" suffered from external forces which were beyond the control of the designers.

There is however no real excuse for what happened on 40. Try as one might and put it in any terms one wishes, it is the equivelent of a B767 pilot taking off with the gear pins in...and there is no real explanation for that which is satisfactory. The reasons are 1) human error...but more importantly 2) system/systemic error.

The later is what should concern the AMSAT community as it contemplates a HEO spacecraft. What it means is at least at the time of AO-40 the expertise to develop the structural system to deal with procedural issues in all aspects of the vehicle DID NOT EXIST.

It isnt that the actual "red" "thing" was missed...it is that the engine had differences (known) from the operational engine and no one stood up and was recognized who said "before we fly this darn thing we need to REALLY understand the differences and what that means".

I have no doubt that the lessons of AO-40 are ringing in everyone's ears and my point is NOT to accelerate that ringing...NOR is it really to say "this is rocket science...and general that needs rocket scientist".

What it means is that folks who are good at looking at systems (irregardless of what the systems do) meed to have a good look at how "everything" is done. The more complex a system is...the more that need exist. The procedures and standards needed to operate my Ercoupe are somewhat different then needed to operate The B767.

It wasnt what was done that lost Columbia (or for that matter Challenger) for NASA...it was how the things were done. Same problem with AO-40...

thanks again for your insight...

Robert WB5MZO life member amsat (and for that matter Ercoupe and B767 driver LOL) _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_022009

All:

I've watched this discussion with some interest, and some pain. I'm over a year removed from involvement in AMSAT leadership and what was then Eagle, so what follows is MY opinion; responsibility for errors or inaccurate conjecture are all mine.

WARNING: OPINION FOLLOWS!

In no particular order: 1. A driving force behind the move to microwaves was to provide innovate SERVICES that could be versatile, and attractive to the "computing" generation. (I spent today judging a regional science fair; the 30-something teacher spent the entire deliberative period texting on her cell phone. 3 weeks ago my 30-something son ran the Goofy challenge [half-marathon on Saturday followed by full marathon on Sunday thru Disney World]. His friends got his splits by text message, and for the next 2 days he got text congrats -- not cell calls.) 2. A driving force behind the move to microwaves was to provide services that would be EASY TO USE and enable the apartment dweller or antenna-restricted ham to work DX with something the size of a DirectTV dish. 3. A fundamental principle of the microwave package was that we'd develop the ground segment in parallel, and using common hardware, with the space segment. No more, "If we build it, they will [hopefully] come." And of course, building more drives cost down .. . . 4. A fundamental principle of the microwave package was that we'd drive the ground segment to be affordable, as defined by the number of people willing to shell out over $500 for the latest FM dual-bander with APRS built in. (I've no idea where the cost estimate is today, but a few years ago, we thought this possible.) 5. There are varying interests at work here. Many (me included!) want to continue to use their legacy equipment. Many (me included!) want the challenge of doing something new and innovative . . . and live up to a reason for amateur radio existence, technical innovation. It's all about balance . . ..which led to the U/V/L package, (legacy) implemented in Software Defined Radio (innovative) which added some neat new capability -- backpackable low data rate emergency communications. Gee, looks like a win-win! 6. FULL DISCLOSURE: I was the Eagle Project Manager for a couple of years. I had to back away about 18 months ago because commitments of the day job and some new family commitments prevented me from doing it right. One of the most painful decisions I've made in my life, but it was the right one for me and I think for AMSAT. I do regret having to back away, and regret whatever role that had in subsequent events. 7. AMSAT technical communithy went through a tough time. Rick Hambly and Barry Baines have documented that in several issues of the Journal. 13 years ago, when my Command was going through some tough times, my XO and I would remind each other, "The true measure of a man is how he responds when things are not going well." So it is with organizations. AMSAT has gone through some tough times but will recover. 8. The current leadership is working the problem. See 2 Journals ago, Barry described what Bill Ress is doing to reconstitute an engineering organization -- both in vision and in resources (volunteers). This will take a while, but from my infrequent LONG conversations with both Barry and Bill, I think it is heading in the right direction; give it a chance, and help all you can. 9. One concept that I've discussed with Barry and Bill (was not my idea, but I do not remember whose) is developing an operational concept ==> functional requirements ==> definition of capabilities needed ==> discrete modules with common interface that can be built generically, put on a shelf, and be available on short notice to adapt to whatever orbit/power/thermal opportunity pops up. I have professional experience with "generic" building blocks, and it is all positive, leading to enhanced capabilities, and the ability to adapt to previously unconsidered applications, leading to higher volume, leading to lower costs, leading to more sales, leading to higher volume . . . . 10. I honestly believe that launches and financial support will be difficult to obtain until we have something to show. Para 9 might give us something to show; could be demonstrated terrestrially -- which was one of the orignial peripheral goals of the microwave package. Once we demonstrate that we have HARDWARE ready to take advantage of opportunities, I really think it will be easier to cultivate those opportunities. 11. Two journals ago was a very thoughtful article about the data architecture of the ACP. Read it. Some good people have done some good theoretical work and concluded that the Earth Space Earth segment can be made to look like a long range TCP/IP connection -- with infinite usage possibilities. This is the kind of capability that going to the microwaves and digital data concepts brings to the table. This kind of work should be encouraged and continued. I've fantasized for many years of "CAT-5 to the antenna box".

So, what's my bottom line? I think AMSAT is moving in a good direction away from some painful organizational challenges. I think AMSAT is reconstituting an engineering organization that can produce innovative payloads, for whatever orbit is available. AMSAT needs our support.

So, keep the discussion going -- honestly, dispassionately, and impersonally. The discussion should be about process and things, not individuals. It should be about looking ahead, not criticising actions of the past. Yes, the past should be studied to learn and not repeat errors, but there is no value in pouring smoldering embers on smoldering embers. Then support AMSAT however you can. ESPECIALLY if you have some technical talent to offer, but if you don't, toss in some $$. If the generic hardware concept evolves and moves to completion, funds will be needed to test and build the modules. THEN, we can seek demonstrations and launch opportunities, and THEN we can worry about getting funded to support the launch. The key is being ready to flex on short notice.

Hope this is of some value.

73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org

Rocky Jones wrote:

Bob...Your "rant" strikes me as pretty close to right on the money. I read the missive in the latest journal about 3.3 and 5.6 ghz links and thought "thats nice, It will never happen".

A baseline requrement for ANY Amateur satellites should be that they work on frequencies and modulation methods which are consistent with radios that are already commercially manufactured for the bands in question...or can use some very easily (think the MDS converters) commercial gear for other services.

The instant the "bird" is designed with some type of radio in mind that does not exist now and is limited to that bird...then the entire adventure is nice but has little practical value.

Why on earth is the AMSAT community wasting time on a design which requires a ground station that is (by the latest Amsat Journal) "beyond the scope of most hams". Instead of spending time working on making an 'acp capable earth station within the reach of most radio amateurs".

Because if the equipment has little value beyond a satellite which could do an Oscar 40 at any time how many are going to shell out the money?

I dont have a clue why the AMSAT design folks seem to think that it isnecessary to drive up into the microwave frequencies. They never seem to answer the question why a 2meter 70cm translator is not a good solution...and the one that we really need.

Meanwhile AO-7 flies on.

Robert WB5MZO life member

---

Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_0220... _______________________________________________ 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

Look at cell phones and wireless LANs to see what microwave equipment can cost.

73,

John KD6OZH

----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Koenig" ke5gdb@gmail.com To: "Amsat BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 03:01 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: HEO naivete

Microwave sounds really expensive. That's probably my lack of knowledge, but down converters, up converters and all of this other equipment that it would take to get on a satellite just seems like it might be too much for me.

I always use the criteria "Can a 15 year old afford it?" :-)

73 de KE5GDB (the 15 year old Satellite operator)

-- Andrew Koenig _______________________________________________ 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

On Feb 8, 2009, at 12:52 AM, John B. Stephensen wrote:

Look at cell phones and wireless LANs to see what microwave equipment can cost.

73,

John KD6OZH

Wireless LAN gear is mass produced by the hundreds of thousands.

Cell phones are also mass produced, but are subsidized (in the U.S.) by the carriers out of subscription fees. For real prices, look at Europe. Or just look at the 3.1 million dollars that Motorola's cellular handset division lost in 2008, according to their annual report.

So keep in mind the price tags you're using as examples, aren't the full price, other than WiFi gear, which is produced in such quantity that economies of scale are involved.

Nate WY0X

Rocky,

The biggest doubt is how do we get it up there? If anyone offers us a low cost ride we need to say: Thank You and Yes Sir!

Amateur radio operators are .02 % of the US population. Boy do we have influence!

I won't be warming up my soldering iron until I see something ready to ride with a launch agreement.

Art, KC6UQH

_____

From: Rocky Jones [mailto:orbitjet@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 10:30 PM To: kc6uqh@cox.net; w7lrd@comcast.net; Amsat BB Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: HEO naivete

Art...no doubt...but the big question is...how much gear is going to be available to "the average ham" that works on 3.3 adn 5.6 ghz...and on what modes and at what price.

the presentation in the recent Journal seems to recycle a phrase "the audacity of hope"

Robert WB5MZO Life member

From: kc6uqh@cox.net To: w7lrd@comcast.net; AMSAT-bb@amsat.org Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 22:17:25 -0800 Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: HEO naivete

Bob, While I was only on the fringe of some of the discussions about being a piggy back on a Geo sat would require the use of those frequencies to be compatible with the main operation of the communications sat and antenna system.

Art, KC6UQH

-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of w7lrd@comcast.net Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:41 PM To: AMSAT-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] HEO naivete

Hello

I have never complained on this BB before. However, I do have a fair amount of naivete (as many of us) regarding our next HEO. The lack of information from AMSAT as well from our DL friends is frustraiting. I

read

in the news about many countries sending up satellites virtually every

few

weeks. . The shuttle is going up every few months. With all this

traffic

why can't we get a ride? I know it's all about money. In the latest AMSAT Journal there is an article talking about using frequencies at 5650 and 3400Mhz. Talk about scarr ing away curr e n t members let alone attracting new ones. AO-40 (sobsob) was supposed to be the best of the

best

for everyone. The current mentality seems to be to put all our "over the top" technology in one basket. I subscribe to the KISS (keep it simple stupid) principle regarding my ham radio endeavors. An example, when L or

S

mode is open on AO-51 how many are there? Yes, I pay my dues, buy AMSAT shirts, and contribute to the Presidents Club fu nding, and can be found on many of our satellites. I build and sell antennas and send a portion

of

those proceeds to AMSAT. I believe I have earned the right to complain.

I

have read the background of many of our members and BOD, we indeed have many very smart educated people in high places. Am I naive about the details? No doubt. I'm just a retired old ham with a back yard full of unuseable antennas, and a lack of comprehenson about what is going on (or not). If this diatribe is all wet I can take the slings and arrows. Talk to me about it on AO-7.

73 Bob W7LRD

AMSAT 28498

Seattle

---

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 3836 (20090207) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

---

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

_____

Windows LiveT: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. Check it out. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_022009

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3836 (20090207) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

James, Sorry I slipped a decimal point but 0.2% is still 49.81% short of a majority! Art, KC6UQH

-----Original Message----- From: James Duffey [mailto:JamesDuffey@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 8:05 AM To: kc6uqh@cox.net Cc: James Duffey; Andrew Glasbrenner; Mike and Paula Herr; AMSAT BB Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] HEO naivete

On Feb 6, 2009, at 11:44 PM, Art McBride wrote:

Amateur radio operators are .02 % of the US population. Boy do we have influence!

Art's math needs some revision. There are about 600,000 hams in the US. The US population is 300,000,000. Thus, 0.2% of the US population are hams, not 0.02%.

Interestingly enough, this error is roughly the same as the ratio of the height of an LEO to the height of an HEO.:^)= - Duffey -- KK6MC James Duffey Cedar Crest NM

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3836 (20090207) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3836 (20090207) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com