Thanks for the input, Drew.
You are correct in suggesting that new satellites be built. In taking a count this morning, it seems that the number of "normally and regularly operating" satellites is dwindling. I count 3 FM satellites, 2 linear transponders, and 4 APRS/PacSats...with one that will be re-entering, one that will be hibernating, one that isn't consistent, and one that is still a bloody mystery to me (GO-32)...hihi. If I missed any, then I will stand as corrected...but it seems as though there there used to be many more birds to choose from.
Another super-satellite such as what AO-40 should have been would be nice, but let's face it: they are really expensive and perhaps a bit too complicated. Instead of one monster satellite, why not build many smaller ones? Less sophisticated ones? Perhaps 2 FM sats(with 2 simultaneous channels rather than one), 2 linear sats, and 2 APRS or PacSats...and build into them modes that are commonly used...such as Mode B or Mode J. Sure, Mode L and S sound fun, but how many satellite operators even HAVE the gear for these more exotic modes?
It is my opinion, and I respect all opinions and points of view pertaining to this, that the "super-satellite" be saved for the Phase 4/Geo-sync bird.
In the interim, I think we need simple satellites that work.
John KB2HSH
--- "John Marranca, Jr" KB2HSH@amsat.org wrote:
You are correct in suggesting that new satellites be built. In taking a count this morning, it seems that the number of "normally and regularly operating" satellites is dwindling. I count 3 FM satellites, 2 linear transponders, and 4 APRS/PacSats...with one that will be re-entering, one that will be hibernating, one that isn't consistent, and one that is still a bloody mystery to me (GO-32)...hihi.
...
In the interim, I think we need simple satellites that work.
I would also add the important proviso that we need them in an orbit that enables "DX" working. Most Amateur satellites launched in the past 30 years have gone into very low 600 - 1000 km orbits which have limited pass times and limited DX possibilities.
The 1500 km orbit of Oscar's 6 and 7 proved very popular as did the 2000km orbit of RS-15.
The problem is that so few launchers go up to those orbits.
73 Trevor M5AKA
__________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Marranca, Jr" KB2HSH@amsat.org To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 11:18 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: RS14/Oscar 21
Thanks for the input, Drew.
[snip]
Another super-satellite such as what AO-40 should have been would be nice, but let's face it: they are really expensive and perhaps a bit too complicated. Instead of one monster satellite, why not build many smaller ones? Less sophisticated ones?
[snip]
The biggest reason is the cost to launch... unless we can get a free or almost free ride, or piggyback on someone else's payload, we need to get as much "bang" for our launch dollar as we can. And IF we got a free ride, I, for one, would not want to see it squandered.
Pretty much only universities, for-profit corporations, and the military can afford to launch a lot of little satellites.
participants (3)
-
George Henry -
John Marranca, Jr -
Trevor