I am not a candidate for the AMSAT BoD (been there, done that) nor am I endorsing or opposing anyone. Most of you know me; if not, please see my QRZ.com page. As the the then EVP, it was my fate to be Acting President during the failure and partial recovery of AO-40. AMSAT's basic problem is financial. Universities and even high schools get NASA up.money to build and launch Cubesats, while AMSAT's limited resources are slowly drying up.
I don't have a solution, but I am not running for the BoD. I urge those who are to put their solutions forward, not just their gripes. 73 Ray W2RS
I am an executive for a telecommunications company.
Landline telephony is a shrinking industry and is heavily regulated by the FCC.
My company will be in the black for the next 10 years due to smart management and hustle.
I offer those same skills to AMSAT-NA.
I didn't do badly in wireless and satellite telephony earlier in my career, either. I retired as a senior engineer from Qualcomm Incorporated. That taught me an enormous amount about cost controls, technical marketing, and how to make money in fields that were assumed to already be saturated or mature.
AMSAT can benefit from both cost cutting and revenue increases. There are grants that have not been applied for and partnerships not pursued. I'm unafraid to take on that job.
-Michelle W5NYV
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 08:32 Ray Soifer via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
I am not a candidate for the AMSAT BoD (been there, done that) nor am I endorsing or opposing anyone. Most of you know me; if not, please see my QRZ.com page. As the the then EVP, it was my fate to be Acting President during the failure and partial recovery of AO-40. AMSAT's basic problem is financial. Universities and even high schools get NASA up.money to build and launch Cubesats, while AMSAT's limited resources are slowly drying up.
I don't have a solution, but I am not running for the BoD. I urge those who are to put their solutions forward, not just their gripes. 73 Ray W2RS _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Thanks, Michelle. An impressive background. I hope other candidates will do as you did. 73 Ray W2RS
-----Original Message----- From: Michelle Thompson mountain.michelle@gmail.com To: Ray Soifer rsoifer1@aol.com Cc: AMSAT BB amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2019 8:43 am Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT-NA
I am an executive for a telecommunications company. Landline telephony is a shrinking industry and is heavily regulated by the FCC. My company will be in the black for the next 10 years due to smart management and hustle. I offer those same skills to AMSAT-NA. I didn't do badly in wireless and satellite telephony earlier in my career, either. I retired as a senior engineer from Qualcomm Incorporated. That taught me an enormous amount about cost controls, technical marketing, and how to make money in fields that were assumed to already be saturated or mature. AMSAT can benefit from both cost cutting and revenue increases. There are grants that have not been applied for and partnerships not pursued. I'm unafraid to take on that job. -Michelle W5NYV
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 08:32 Ray Soifer via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
I am not a candidate for the AMSAT BoD (been there, done that) nor am I endorsing or opposing anyone. Most of you know me; if not, please see my QRZ.com page. As the the then EVP, it was my fate to be Acting President during the failure and partial recovery of AO-40. AMSAT's basic problem is financial. Universities and even high schools get NASA up.money to build and launch Cubesats, while AMSAT's limited resources are slowly drying up.
I don't have a solution, but I am not running for the BoD. I urge those who are to put their solutions forward, not just their gripes. 73 Ray W2RS _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Ray,
We agree. Our partnerships with universities and other organizations over the past several years have opened up that door to us. With the work pioneered by Tony Monteiro and continued by Jerry Buxton, we obtained fully-funded launches for three of the Fox-1 satellites through NASA's CubeSat Launch Inititative. Additionally, the first two GOLF satellites have also been selected to participate in that program. Securing seven fully-funded launches for our satellites is no small feat. Jerry's hard work on these CubeSat Launch Initiative proposals and his commitment to maintaining excellent relationships with NASA and our university partners has placed us in an excellent position.
Led by Jerry, along with Drew Glasbrenner, we are also partnering with several universities to place amateur radio transponders on CubeSats that are under development.The first of these satellites carrying an AMSAT developed and built transponder resulting from these partnerships, HuskySat-1, built at the University of Washington, will launch this fall. Work is well underway with several other entities to place at least a dozen more of these systems on university-built CubeSats over the next several years.
In late June, the Board elected Frank Karnauskas, N1UW, as the Vice President - Development charged with seeking out further grants and partnerships. He brings a lot of knowledge and energy to this position and already has a team of two individuals to help him with the grant-writing process. The incumbent directors are well aware that we need to find partnerships and funding from outside the world of amateur radio and we have been working to improve in these areas by finding individuals with the right sklll sets to address them. I note, for the record, that AMSAT is running a modest surplus through the first six months of the year despite large expenditures for GOLF and ARISS hardware development.
In addition to finding additional sources of revenue, we also need to modernize some of our office and membership processes. We are currently working with an IT contractor to modernize our decades-old membership database and enable us to provide modern, digital services to our membership, such as digital distribution of The AMSAT Journal.
Addressing deficiencies that date back 20+ years takes time, but I believe we are on a path that will enable us to Keep Amateur Radio in Space for another 50 years and beyond.
As you are also aware, beyond the issue of partnerships and revenue, we also need to continue our work on regulatory matters. The issue of ITAR and EAR is, of course, a big one. Last fall, the Board authorized the retention of a law firm to advise us on these matters and we are nearing completion of a policy to address ITAR and EAR matters that will open the door to again work with other AMSAT organizations and entities abroad. We are also concerned about orbital debris mitigation and amateur satellite licensing issues with the FCC. I authored AMSAT's comments and reply comments to the FCC on both small satellite licensing and orbital debris mitigation rulemaking proposals and have also been working with the ARRL's Washington counsel (an AMSAT life member) on these issues.
73,
Paul Stoetzer, N8HM Executive Vice President Member of the Board of Directors AMSAT
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:31 AM Ray Soifer via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
I am not a candidate for the AMSAT BoD (been there, done that) nor am I endorsing or opposing anyone. Most of you know me; if not, please see my QRZ.com page. As the the then EVP, it was my fate to be Acting President during the failure and partial recovery of AO-40. AMSAT's basic problem is financial. Universities and even high schools get NASA up.money to build and launch Cubesats, while AMSAT's limited resources are slowly drying up.
I don't have a solution, but I am not running for the BoD. I urge those who are to put their solutions forward, not just their gripes. 73 Ray W2RS _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Hi Paul, Yes, we do agree. Frank's appointment is good news. I hope he is more successful than those of others appointed to similar positions in years past. 73 Ray W2RS
-----Original Message----- From: Paul Stoetzer n8hm@arrl.net To: Ray Soifer rsoifer1@aol.com Cc: AMSAT BB amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sun, Jul 28, 2019 9:37 am Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT-NA
Ray, We agree. Our partnerships with universities and other organizations over the past several years have opened up that door to us. With the work pioneered by Tony Monteiro and continued by Jerry Buxton, we obtained fully-funded launches for three of the Fox-1 satellites through NASA's CubeSat Launch Inititative. Additionally, the first two GOLF satellites have also been selected to participate in that program. Securing seven fully-funded launches for our satellites is no small feat. Jerry's hard work on these CubeSat Launch Initiative proposals and his commitment to maintaining excellent relationships with NASA and our university partners has placed us in an excellent position. Led by Jerry, along with Drew Glasbrenner, we are also partnering with several universities to place amateur radio transponders on CubeSats that are under development.The first of these satellites carrying an AMSAT developed and built transponder resulting from these partnerships, HuskySat-1, built at the University of Washington, will launch this fall. Work is well underway with several other entities to place at least a dozen more of these systems on university-built CubeSats over the next several years. In late June, the Board elected Frank Karnauskas, N1UW, as the Vice President - Development charged with seeking out further grants and partnerships. He brings a lot of knowledge and energy to this position and already has a team of two individuals to help him with the grant-writing process. The incumbent directors are well aware that we need to find partnerships and funding from outside the world of amateur radio and we have been working to improve in these areas by finding individuals with the right sklll sets to address them. I note, for the record, that AMSAT is running a modest surplus through the first six months of the year despite large expenditures for GOLF and ARISS hardware development. In addition to finding additional sources of revenue, we also need to modernize some of our office and membership processes. We are currently working with an IT contractor to modernize our decades-old membership database and enable us to provide modern, digital services to our membership, such as digital distribution of The AMSAT Journal. Addressing deficiencies that date back 20+ years takes time, but I believe we are on a path that will enable us to Keep Amateur Radio in Space for another 50 years and beyond. As you are also aware, beyond the issue of partnerships and revenue, we also need to continue our work on regulatory matters. The issue of ITAR and EAR is, of course, a big one. Last fall, the Board authorized the retention of a law firm to advise us on these matters and we are nearing completion of a policy to address ITAR and EAR matters that will open the door to again work with other AMSAT organizations and entities abroad. We are also concerned about orbital debris mitigation and amateur satellite licensing issues with the FCC. I authored AMSAT's comments and reply comments to the FCC on both small satellite licensing and orbital debris mitigation rulemaking proposals and have also been working with the ARRL's Washington counsel (an AMSAT life member) on these issues. 73, Paul Stoetzer, N8HMExecutive Vice PresidentMember of the Board of DirectorsAMSAT On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:31 AM Ray Soifer via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
I am not a candidate for the AMSAT BoD (been there, done that) nor am I endorsing or opposing anyone. Most of you know me; if not, please see my QRZ.com page. As the the then EVP, it was my fate to be Acting President during the failure and partial recovery of AO-40. AMSAT's basic problem is financial. Universities and even high schools get NASA up.money to build and launch Cubesats, while AMSAT's limited resources are slowly drying up.
I don't have a solution, but I am not running for the BoD. I urge those who are to put their solutions forward, not just their gripes. 73 Ray W2RS _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Everyone: Solution/recommendation: HEO ASAP (yes I am aware of GOLF) to make DX possible and bring in a new 'market' (revenue) and interest level to AMSAT.
Perspective (from an active and avid ham who is still on the sidelines about satellites) is:
disclaimer first: (if this offends anyone, I apologize in advance; for we all have varying interests).. and diversity is good).
My new very capable all-mode satellite radio and two new antennas (a G3RUH Helix and a WiMo 2m RHCP) are still in the box.. why?
1) I am also building a large EME array that's all-consuming, and I have yet to find a suitable (mechanically balanced) satellite rotor solution (and lack the time to build my own).
2) Currently I see very little DX possible on satellites; therefore my interest level in satellites is poor to moderate at best.
3) My QTH has 60 foot trees and so putting something near ground here is not feasible to work the pass-ends needed for DX.
I realize HEO is expensive.. but having DX possible would bring in a whole new 'market.' (revenue) DXers have money (consider the cost of current DXpeditions to places like Bouvet and view their operating budget and funding sources)
Again, I DO NOT mean to offend anyone with any other interests.. just stating my humble perspective.
OK.. if I did somehow offend anyone, I am sorry.. flames to me personally, not the list please..
very 73,
Dave KJ9I
P.S. I am not running for any AMSAT role.. merely stating my view that seems to be absent mostly from the traffic I've observed on the AMSAT-BB
On 7/28/19 10:31 AM, Ray Soifer via AMSAT-BB wrote:
I am not a candidate for the AMSAT BoD (been there, done that) nor am I endorsing or opposing anyone. Most of you know me; if not, please see my QRZ.com page. As the the then EVP, it was my fate to be Acting President during the failure and partial recovery of AO-40. AMSAT's basic problem is financial. Universities and even high schools get NASA up.money to build and launch Cubesats, while AMSAT's limited resources are slowly drying up.
I don't have a solution, but I am not running for the BoD. I urge those who are to put their solutions forward, not just their gripes. 73 Ray W2RS _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type goals? Ev, W2EV
On Sunday, July 28, 2019, 7:08:14 PM EDT, David J. Schmocker via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
Everyone: Solution/recommendation: HEO ASAP (yes I am aware of GOLF) to make DX possible and bring in a new 'market' (revenue) and interest level to AMSAT.
Perspective (from an active and avid ham who is still on the sidelines about satellites) is:
disclaimer first: (if this offends anyone, I apologize in advance; for we all have varying interests).. and diversity is good).
My new very capable all-mode satellite radio and two new antennas (a G3RUH Helix and a WiMo 2m RHCP) are still in the box.. why?
1) I am also building a large EME array that's all-consuming, and I have yet to find a suitable (mechanically balanced) satellite rotor solution (and lack the time to build my own).
2) Currently I see very little DX possible on satellites; therefore my interest level in satellites is poor to moderate at best.
3) My QTH has 60 foot trees and so putting something near ground here is not feasible to work the pass-ends needed for DX.
I realize HEO is expensive.. but having DX possible would bring in a whole new 'market.' (revenue) DXers have money (consider the cost of current DXpeditions to places like Bouvet and view their operating budget and funding sources)
Again, I DO NOT mean to offend anyone with any other interests.. just stating my humble perspective.
OK.. if I did somehow offend anyone, I am sorry.. flames to me personally, not the list please..
very 73,
Dave KJ9I
P.S. I am not running for any AMSAT role.. merely stating my view that seems to be absent mostly from the traffic I've observed on the AMSAT-BB
On 7/28/19 10:31 AM, Ray Soifer via AMSAT-BB wrote:
I am not a candidate for the AMSAT BoD (been there, done that) nor am I endorsing or opposing anyone. Most of you know me; if not, please see my QRZ.com page. As the the then EVP, it was my fate to be Acting President during the failure and partial recovery of AO-40. AMSAT's basic problem is financial. Universities and even high schools get NASA up.money to build and launch Cubesats, while AMSAT's limited resources are slowly drying up.
I don't have a solution, but I am not running for the BoD. I urge those who are to put their solutions forward, not just their gripes. 73 Ray W2RS _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
On July 28, 2019 6:46:20 PM CDT, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type goals? Ev, W2EV
Your donation.
Give early, give often. --- Zach N0ZGO
What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type goals?
Your donation.>Give early, give often.
What needs to be donated? Technical expertise? Parts? Ground transportation? Meeting rooms? Negotiation skill? Political contacts? Clean room time? Payload space? Everyone always thinks "money". (As much) money isn't needed if "what money buys" is available for negotiation, barter, or "in the store house awaiting donation".
What are the top barriers?
Inquiringly yours, Ev, W2EV
Ev,
thank you; this is the right question.
Everyone, The next is how do we remove the barriers, or 'what drives AMSAT revenue?' Clayton suggested it's not interest level/buzz/excitement about a project as I would have predicted drives revenue. Then if we know it's not 'buzz, ' is there data about what does drive AMSAT revenue?
very 73,
Dave KJ9I
On 7/28/19 6:46 PM, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB wrote:
What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type goals? Ev, W2EV
On Sunday, July 28, 2019, 7:08:14 PM EDT, David J. Schmocker via AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@amsat.org> wrote:Everyone: Solution/recommendation: HEO ASAP (yes I am aware of GOLF) to make DX possible and bring in a new 'market' (revenue) and interest level to AMSAT.
Perspective (from an active and avid ham who is still on the sidelines about satellites) is:
disclaimer first: (if this offends anyone, I apologize in advance; for we all have varying interests).. and diversity is good).
My new very capable all-mode satellite radio and two new antennas (a G3RUH Helix and a WiMo 2m RHCP) are still in the box.. why?
- I am also building a large EME array that's all-consuming, and I have
yet to find a suitable (mechanically balanced) satellite rotor solution (and lack the time to build my own).
- Currently I see very little DX possible on satellites; therefore my
interest level in satellites is poor to moderate at best.
- My QTH has 60 foot trees and so putting something near ground here is
not feasible to work the pass-ends needed for DX.
I realize HEO is expensive.. but having DX possible would bring in a whole new 'market.' (revenue) DXers have money (consider the cost of current DXpeditions to places like Bouvet and view their operating budget and funding sources)
Again, I DO NOT mean to offend anyone with any other interests.. just stating my humble perspective.
OK.. if I did somehow offend anyone, I am sorry.. flames to me personally, not the list please..
very 73,
Dave KJ9I
P.S. I am not running for any AMSAT role.. merely stating my view that seems to be absent mostly from the traffic I've observed on the AMSAT-BB
On 7/28/19 10:31 AM, Ray Soifer via AMSAT-BB wrote:
I am not a candidate for the AMSAT BoD (been there, done that) nor am I endorsing or opposing anyone. Most of you know me; if not, please see my QRZ.com page. As the the then EVP, it was my fate to be Acting President during the failure and partial recovery of AO-40. AMSAT's basic problem is financial. Universities and even high schools get NASA up.money to build and launch Cubesats, while AMSAT's limited resources are slowly drying up.
I don't have a solution, but I am not running for the BoD. I urge those who are to put their solutions forward, not just their gripes. 73 Ray W2RS _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Everyone, The next is how do we remove the barriers ... [and other BS] ...
The AMSAT Board of Directors Meeting, October 16-17 Hilton Arlington, 950 North Stafford Street, Arlington, Virginia, 22203
See you there?
-- 73 de JoAnne K9JKM k9jkm@amsat.org
On 7/28/2019 18:46, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB wrote:
What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type goals?
Actually, from my perspective right now the top barrier is orbital debris regulations. GOLF-1 isn't going where I wanted to go because the enforcement has become stringent and a hot topic worldwide. We can't license or launch anything that doesn't de-orbit within 25 years and a HEO orbit (GTO actually, keeping it simple for this point) is likely to last "too long" by itself. There are options available for deorbit BUT the kicker right now is that they have to be proven and approved by the FCC. In that we know of no such device(s) available at this time, keeping within the current expectations of 3U. A change in size (6U) might yield some possibilities but I know of none there either, right now. We have been discussing and working with both NASA and FCC for possibilities. If something is available whether drag or propulsion, then we get into the cost issue not to mention the price of a launch to a GTO which is currently around $900k MSRP. If we had a million bucks and approved device(s) were available right now that fit within a $1 million budget then we would be pursuing that.
Another option is to find a launch with a low enough perigee to naturally decay in 25 years, but whether earning an ELaNa launch or buying one, we will always be secondary payload and don't have a lot of say in specific orbit parameters.
One more option is rideshare, and that is also in active discussion. The point there would be that the onus of orbital debris compliance is on the satellite we hitch a ride with, although that also goes into not having a lot of say on the final orbit not to mention satisfying a primary payload that everything will be just fine if they take us along. And then again, there's likely cost there too... We have some options that wouldn't necessarily require lots of money, they just won't be happening today.
Other possibilities? As far as I know we are pursuing the current options available per NASA and FCC, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other possibilities. If you have any, keep in mind that building a good case for use of whatever the possibility might be is key to gaining any approval. And 90% probability that whatever will get you back in less than 25 years is a tough challenge.
We are bucking a trend, general CubeSat missions are happy with going lower or from ISS, and bucking the trend not new with AMSAT but it is new in this world today because of the regulation and stakes as well as the fact that most everyone we deal with has no knowledge of AMSAT beyond the record the we have created and grown in the last 4 years of launches. We are not magically known just because we launched some pretty cool satellites in the past. Hopefully we will be known by more through our continued contact, cooperation, and "by the book" production and delivery of CubeSats with NASA, FCC, launch integrators, and others who we look to for these launch opportunities.
Or get a bunch of money because that probably is the second biggest barrier...
Jerry Buxton, NØJY
Somewhere in AMSAT there is someone who has "Project Managed" long enough (or has access to process-flow diagrams) and can publish a generic work breakdown of both the steps and resources needed to put a highly elliptical (presumably less expensive) or Geostationary (presumably more expensive) bird into orbit and manage it.
If that person (or people) could publish that along with a "checkmark" next to the items that are "already in place", "in active progress", and "needs sponsor/enthusiast" then we are more likely to fill-in the gaps.
Remember the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game (a.k.a. "Bacon's Law")? Let's play it out here! Ev, W2EV
On Tuesday, July 30, 2019, 6:15:19 PM EDT, Jerry Buxton via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
On 7/28/2019 18:46, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB wrote:
What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type goals?
Actually, from my perspective right now the top barrier is orbital debris regulations. GOLF-1 isn't going where I wanted to go because the enforcement has become stringent and a hot topic worldwide. We can't license or launch anything that doesn't de-orbit within 25 years and a HEO orbit (GTO actually, keeping it simple for this point) is likely to last "too long" by itself. There are options available for deorbit BUT the kicker right now is that they have to be proven and approved by the FCC. In that we know of no such device(s) available at this time, keeping within the current expectations of 3U. A change in size (6U) might yield some possibilities but I know of none there either, right now. We have been discussing and working with both NASA and FCC for possibilities. If something is available whether drag or propulsion, then we get into the cost issue not to mention the price of a launch to a GTO which is currently around $900k MSRP. If we had a million bucks and approved device(s) were available right now that fit within a $1 million budget then we would be pursuing that.
Another option is to find a launch with a low enough perigee to naturally decay in 25 years, but whether earning an ELaNa launch or buying one, we will always be secondary payload and don't have a lot of say in specific orbit parameters.
One more option is rideshare, and that is also in active discussion. The point there would be that the onus of orbital debris compliance is on the satellite we hitch a ride with, although that also goes into not having a lot of say on the final orbit not to mention satisfying a primary payload that everything will be just fine if they take us along. And then again, there's likely cost there too... We have some options that wouldn't necessarily require lots of money, they just won't be happening today.
Other possibilities? As far as I know we are pursuing the current options available per NASA and FCC, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other possibilities. If you have any, keep in mind that building a good case for use of whatever the possibility might be is key to gaining any approval. And 90% probability that whatever will get you back in less than 25 years is a tough challenge.
We are bucking a trend, general CubeSat missions are happy with going lower or from ISS, and bucking the trend not new with AMSAT but it is new in this world today because of the regulation and stakes as well as the fact that most everyone we deal with has no knowledge of AMSAT beyond the record the we have created and grown in the last 4 years of launches. We are not magically known just because we launched some pretty cool satellites in the past. Hopefully we will be known by more through our continued contact, cooperation, and "by the book" production and delivery of CubeSats with NASA, FCC, launch integrators, and others who we look to for these launch opportunities.
Or get a bunch of money because that probably is the second biggest barrier...
Jerry Buxton, NØJY
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Ev,
The orbital debris regulations are a huge barrier. See Jerry's post on this reflector. It is not the case that AMSAT is not looking very hard at the issue. Everything has an opportunity cost associated with it. AMSAT has limited resources both in terms of people and dollars. Are you suggesting AMSAT drop everything they are working on and pursue your pet option?
Bacon's Law was passed by the Virginia Legislature June 23, 1676, after Nathaniel Bacon *invaded* Jamestown and *forced* the legislature to grant him a charter to go fight Indians. *That* Bacon's Law? So you are suggesting we *invade* AMSAT HQ and *force* the Board of Director's to authorize this project?
Maybe you are referring to a different Bacon's Law. Sounds kind of over the top to me.
Respectfully,
John
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 7:12 AM Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
Somewhere in AMSAT there is someone who has "Project Managed" long enough (or has access to process-flow diagrams) and can publish a generic work breakdown of both the steps and resources needed to put a highly elliptical (presumably less expensive) or Geostationary (presumably more expensive) bird into orbit and manage it.
If that person (or people) could publish that along with a "checkmark" next to the items that are "already in place", "in active progress", and "needs sponsor/enthusiast" then we are more likely to fill-in the gaps.
Remember the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game (a.k.a. "Bacon's Law")? Let's play it out here! Ev, W2EV
On Tuesday, July 30, 2019, 6:15:19 PM EDT, Jerry Buxton via AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@amsat.org> wrote:
On 7/28/2019 18:46, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB wrote:
What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type
goals? Actually, from my perspective right now the top barrier is orbital debris regulations. GOLF-1 isn't going where I wanted to go because the enforcement has become stringent and a hot topic worldwide. We can't license or launch anything that doesn't de-orbit within 25 years and a HEO orbit (GTO actually, keeping it simple for this point) is likely to last "too long" by itself. There are options available for deorbit BUT the kicker right now is that they have to be proven and approved by the FCC. In that we know of no such device(s) available at this time, keeping within the current expectations of 3U. A change in size (6U) might yield some possibilities but I know of none there either, right now. We have been discussing and working with both NASA and FCC for possibilities. If something is available whether drag or propulsion, then we get into the cost issue not to mention the price of a launch to a GTO which is currently around $900k MSRP. If we had a million bucks and approved device(s) were available right now that fit within a $1 million budget then we would be pursuing that.
Another option is to find a launch with a low enough perigee to naturally decay in 25 years, but whether earning an ELaNa launch or buying one, we will always be secondary payload and don't have a lot of say in specific orbit parameters.
One more option is rideshare, and that is also in active discussion. The point there would be that the onus of orbital debris compliance is on the satellite we hitch a ride with, although that also goes into not having a lot of say on the final orbit not to mention satisfying a primary payload that everything will be just fine if they take us along. And then again, there's likely cost there too... We have some options that wouldn't necessarily require lots of money, they just won't be happening today.
Other possibilities? As far as I know we are pursuing the current options available per NASA and FCC, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other possibilities. If you have any, keep in mind that building a good case for use of whatever the possibility might be is key to gaining any approval. And 90% probability that whatever will get you back in less than 25 years is a tough challenge.
We are bucking a trend, general CubeSat missions are happy with going lower or from ISS, and bucking the trend not new with AMSAT but it is new in this world today because of the regulation and stakes as well as the fact that most everyone we deal with has no knowledge of AMSAT beyond the record the we have created and grown in the last 4 years of launches. We are not magically known just because we launched some pretty cool satellites in the past. Hopefully we will be known by more through our continued contact, cooperation, and "by the book" production and delivery of CubeSats with NASA, FCC, launch integrators, and others who we look to for these launch opportunities.
Or get a bunch of money because that probably is the second biggest barrier...
Jerry Buxton, NØJY
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Bacon's law here means everyone is no more than six people away from someone who personally knows Kevin Bacon. He is saying we all know a lot of people, enough people that we might be able to do impressive things with them.
Also, surely he doesn't mean AMSAT should drop everything for this idea. I think you're reading into Ev's message too much.
73, John Brier KG4AKV
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 8:26 AM John Kludt via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
Ev,
The orbital debris regulations are a huge barrier. See Jerry's post on this reflector. It is not the case that AMSAT is not looking very hard at the issue. Everything has an opportunity cost associated with it. AMSAT has limited resources both in terms of people and dollars. Are you suggesting AMSAT drop everything they are working on and pursue your pet option?
Bacon's Law was passed by the Virginia Legislature June 23, 1676, after Nathaniel Bacon *invaded* Jamestown and *forced* the legislature to grant him a charter to go fight Indians. *That* Bacon's Law? So you are suggesting we *invade* AMSAT HQ and *force* the Board of Director's to authorize this project?
Maybe you are referring to a different Bacon's Law. Sounds kind of over the top to me.
Respectfully,
John
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 7:12 AM Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
Somewhere in AMSAT there is someone who has "Project Managed" long enough (or has access to process-flow diagrams) and can publish a generic work breakdown of both the steps and resources needed to put a highly elliptical (presumably less expensive) or Geostationary (presumably more expensive) bird into orbit and manage it.
If that person (or people) could publish that along with a "checkmark" next to the items that are "already in place", "in active progress", and "needs sponsor/enthusiast" then we are more likely to fill-in the gaps.
Remember the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game (a.k.a. "Bacon's Law")? Let's play it out here! Ev, W2EV
On Tuesday, July 30, 2019, 6:15:19 PM EDT, Jerry Buxton via AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@amsat.org> wrote:
On 7/28/2019 18:46, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB wrote:
What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type
goals? Actually, from my perspective right now the top barrier is orbital debris regulations. GOLF-1 isn't going where I wanted to go because the enforcement has become stringent and a hot topic worldwide. We can't license or launch anything that doesn't de-orbit within 25 years and a HEO orbit (GTO actually, keeping it simple for this point) is likely to last "too long" by itself. There are options available for deorbit BUT the kicker right now is that they have to be proven and approved by the FCC. In that we know of no such device(s) available at this time, keeping within the current expectations of 3U. A change in size (6U) might yield some possibilities but I know of none there either, right now. We have been discussing and working with both NASA and FCC for possibilities. If something is available whether drag or propulsion, then we get into the cost issue not to mention the price of a launch to a GTO which is currently around $900k MSRP. If we had a million bucks and approved device(s) were available right now that fit within a $1 million budget then we would be pursuing that.
Another option is to find a launch with a low enough perigee to naturally decay in 25 years, but whether earning an ELaNa launch or buying one, we will always be secondary payload and don't have a lot of say in specific orbit parameters.
One more option is rideshare, and that is also in active discussion. The point there would be that the onus of orbital debris compliance is on the satellite we hitch a ride with, although that also goes into not having a lot of say on the final orbit not to mention satisfying a primary payload that everything will be just fine if they take us along. And then again, there's likely cost there too... We have some options that wouldn't necessarily require lots of money, they just won't be happening today.
Other possibilities? As far as I know we are pursuing the current options available per NASA and FCC, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other possibilities. If you have any, keep in mind that building a good case for use of whatever the possibility might be is key to gaining any approval. And 90% probability that whatever will get you back in less than 25 years is a tough challenge.
We are bucking a trend, general CubeSat missions are happy with going lower or from ISS, and bucking the trend not new with AMSAT but it is new in this world today because of the regulation and stakes as well as the fact that most everyone we deal with has no knowledge of AMSAT beyond the record the we have created and grown in the last 4 years of launches. We are not magically known just because we launched some pretty cool satellites in the past. Hopefully we will be known by more through our continued contact, cooperation, and "by the book" production and delivery of CubeSats with NASA, FCC, launch integrators, and others who we look to for these launch opportunities.
Or get a bunch of money because that probably is the second biggest barrier...
Jerry Buxton, NØJY
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
John,
Ah, like I said a different Bacon's Law. With very different implications.
John
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:49 PM John Brier johnbrier@gmail.com wrote:
Bacon's law here means everyone is no more than six people away from someone who personally knows Kevin Bacon. He is saying we all know a lot of people, enough people that we might be able to do impressive things with them.
Also, surely he doesn't mean AMSAT should drop everything for this idea. I think you're reading into Ev's message too much.
73, John Brier KG4AKV
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 8:26 AM John Kludt via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
Ev,
The orbital debris regulations are a huge barrier. See Jerry's post on this reflector. It is not the case that AMSAT is not looking very hard
at
the issue. Everything has an opportunity cost associated with it. AMSAT has limited resources both in terms of people and dollars. Are you suggesting AMSAT drop everything they are working on and pursue your pet option?
Bacon's Law was passed by the Virginia Legislature June 23, 1676, after Nathaniel Bacon *invaded* Jamestown and *forced* the legislature to grant him a charter to go fight Indians. *That* Bacon's Law? So you are suggesting we *invade* AMSAT HQ and *force* the Board of Director's to authorize this project?
Maybe you are referring to a different Bacon's Law. Sounds kind of over the top to me.
Respectfully,
John
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 7:12 AM Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB <
amsat-bb@amsat.org>
wrote:
Somewhere in AMSAT there is someone who has "Project Managed" long
enough
(or has access to process-flow diagrams) and can publish a generic work breakdown of both the steps and resources needed to put a highly
elliptical
(presumably less expensive) or Geostationary (presumably more
expensive)
bird into orbit and manage it.
If that person (or people) could publish that along with a "checkmark" next to the items that are "already in place", "in active progress",
and
"needs sponsor/enthusiast" then we are more likely to fill-in the gaps.
Remember the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game (a.k.a. "Bacon's Law")? Let's play it out here! Ev, W2EV
On Tuesday, July 30, 2019, 6:15:19 PM EDT, Jerry Buxton viaAMSAT-BB <
amsat-bb@amsat.org> wrote:
On 7/28/2019 18:46, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB wrote:
What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40
type
goals? Actually, from my perspective right now the top barrier is orbital debris regulations. GOLF-1 isn't going where I wanted to go because
the
enforcement has become stringent and a hot topic worldwide. We can't license or launch anything that doesn't de-orbit within 25 years and a HEO orbit (GTO actually, keeping it simple for this point) is likely to last "too long" by itself. There are options available for deorbit BUT the kicker right now is that they have to be proven and approved by the FCC. In that we know of no such device(s) available at this time, keeping within the current expectations of 3U. A change in size (6U) might yield some possibilities but I know of none there either, right now. We have been discussing and working with both NASA and FCC for possibilities. If something is available whether drag or propulsion, then we get into the cost issue not to mention the price of a launch to a GTO which is currently around $900k MSRP. If we had a million bucks and approved device(s) were available right now that fit within a $1 million budget then we would be pursuing that.
Another option is to find a launch with a low enough perigee to naturally decay in 25 years, but whether earning an ELaNa launch or buying one, we will always be secondary payload and don't have a lot of say in specific orbit parameters.
One more option is rideshare, and that is also in active discussion. The point there would be that the onus of orbital debris compliance is on the satellite we hitch a ride with, although that also goes into not having a lot of say on the final orbit not to mention satisfying a primary payload that everything will be just fine if they take us along. And then again, there's likely cost there too... We have some options that wouldn't necessarily require lots of money, they just
won't
be happening today.
Other possibilities? As far as I know we are pursuing the current options available per NASA and FCC, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other possibilities. If you have any, keep in mind that
building
a good case for use of whatever the possibility might be is key to gaining any approval. And 90% probability that whatever will get you back in less than 25 years is a tough challenge.
We are bucking a trend, general CubeSat missions are happy with going lower or from ISS, and bucking the trend not new with AMSAT but it is new in this world today because of the regulation and stakes as well as the fact that most everyone we deal with has no knowledge of AMSAT beyond the record the we have created and grown in the last 4 years of launches. We are not magically known just because we launched some pretty cool satellites in the past. Hopefully we will be known by more through our continued contact, cooperation, and "by the book"
production
and delivery of CubeSats with NASA, FCC, launch integrators, and others who we look to for these launch opportunities.
Or get a bunch of money because that probably is the second biggest barrier...
Jerry Buxton, NØJY
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
Opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views
of
AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
program!
Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
Opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views
of
AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
program!
Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
Opinions expressed
are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
program!
Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Indeed sir.
If we can get ahold of Kevin Bacon maybe we can get a GEO sat!
;-)
73, John Brier KG4AKV
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:14 PM John Kludt johnnykludt@gmail.com wrote:
John,
Ah, like I said a different Bacon's Law. With very different implications.
John
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:49 PM John Brier johnbrier@gmail.com wrote:
Bacon's law here means everyone is no more than six people away from someone who personally knows Kevin Bacon. He is saying we all know a lot of people, enough people that we might be able to do impressive things with them.
Also, surely he doesn't mean AMSAT should drop everything for this idea. I think you're reading into Ev's message too much.
73, John Brier KG4AKV
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 8:26 AM John Kludt via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
Ev,
The orbital debris regulations are a huge barrier. See Jerry's post on this reflector. It is not the case that AMSAT is not looking very hard at the issue. Everything has an opportunity cost associated with it. AMSAT has limited resources both in terms of people and dollars. Are you suggesting AMSAT drop everything they are working on and pursue your pet option?
Bacon's Law was passed by the Virginia Legislature June 23, 1676, after Nathaniel Bacon *invaded* Jamestown and *forced* the legislature to grant him a charter to go fight Indians. *That* Bacon's Law? So you are suggesting we *invade* AMSAT HQ and *force* the Board of Director's to authorize this project?
Maybe you are referring to a different Bacon's Law. Sounds kind of over the top to me.
Respectfully,
John
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 7:12 AM Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
Somewhere in AMSAT there is someone who has "Project Managed" long enough (or has access to process-flow diagrams) and can publish a generic work breakdown of both the steps and resources needed to put a highly elliptical (presumably less expensive) or Geostationary (presumably more expensive) bird into orbit and manage it.
If that person (or people) could publish that along with a "checkmark" next to the items that are "already in place", "in active progress", and "needs sponsor/enthusiast" then we are more likely to fill-in the gaps.
Remember the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game (a.k.a. "Bacon's Law")? Let's play it out here! Ev, W2EV
On Tuesday, July 30, 2019, 6:15:19 PM EDT, Jerry Buxton via AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@amsat.org> wrote:
On 7/28/2019 18:46, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB wrote:
What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type
goals? Actually, from my perspective right now the top barrier is orbital debris regulations. GOLF-1 isn't going where I wanted to go because the enforcement has become stringent and a hot topic worldwide. We can't license or launch anything that doesn't de-orbit within 25 years and a HEO orbit (GTO actually, keeping it simple for this point) is likely to last "too long" by itself. There are options available for deorbit BUT the kicker right now is that they have to be proven and approved by the FCC. In that we know of no such device(s) available at this time, keeping within the current expectations of 3U. A change in size (6U) might yield some possibilities but I know of none there either, right now. We have been discussing and working with both NASA and FCC for possibilities. If something is available whether drag or propulsion, then we get into the cost issue not to mention the price of a launch to a GTO which is currently around $900k MSRP. If we had a million bucks and approved device(s) were available right now that fit within a $1 million budget then we would be pursuing that.
Another option is to find a launch with a low enough perigee to naturally decay in 25 years, but whether earning an ELaNa launch or buying one, we will always be secondary payload and don't have a lot of say in specific orbit parameters.
One more option is rideshare, and that is also in active discussion. The point there would be that the onus of orbital debris compliance is on the satellite we hitch a ride with, although that also goes into not having a lot of say on the final orbit not to mention satisfying a primary payload that everything will be just fine if they take us along. And then again, there's likely cost there too... We have some options that wouldn't necessarily require lots of money, they just won't be happening today.
Other possibilities? As far as I know we are pursuing the current options available per NASA and FCC, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other possibilities. If you have any, keep in mind that building a good case for use of whatever the possibility might be is key to gaining any approval. And 90% probability that whatever will get you back in less than 25 years is a tough challenge.
We are bucking a trend, general CubeSat missions are happy with going lower or from ISS, and bucking the trend not new with AMSAT but it is new in this world today because of the regulation and stakes as well as the fact that most everyone we deal with has no knowledge of AMSAT beyond the record the we have created and grown in the last 4 years of launches. We are not magically known just because we launched some pretty cool satellites in the past. Hopefully we will be known by more through our continued contact, cooperation, and "by the book" production and delivery of CubeSats with NASA, FCC, launch integrators, and others who we look to for these launch opportunities.
Or get a bunch of money because that probably is the second biggest barrier...
Jerry Buxton, NØJY
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
I thought that was Six Degrees of Separation.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 12:26 PM John Brier via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
Indeed sir.
If we can get ahold of Kevin Bacon maybe we can get a GEO sat!
;-)
73, John Brier KG4AKV
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:14 PM John Kludt johnnykludt@gmail.com wrote:
John,
Ah, like I said a different Bacon's Law. With very different
implications.
John
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:49 PM John Brier johnbrier@gmail.com wrote:
Bacon's law here means everyone is no more than six people away from someone who personally knows Kevin Bacon. He is saying we all know a lot of people, enough people that we might be able to do impressive things with them.
Also, surely he doesn't mean AMSAT should drop everything for this idea. I think you're reading into Ev's message too much.
73, John Brier KG4AKV
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 8:26 AM John Kludt via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
Ev,
The orbital debris regulations are a huge barrier. See Jerry's post
on
this reflector. It is not the case that AMSAT is not looking very
hard at
the issue. Everything has an opportunity cost associated with it.
AMSAT
has limited resources both in terms of people and dollars. Are you suggesting AMSAT drop everything they are working on and pursue your
pet
option?
Bacon's Law was passed by the Virginia Legislature June 23, 1676,
after
Nathaniel Bacon *invaded* Jamestown and *forced* the legislature to
grant
him a charter to go fight Indians. *That* Bacon's Law? So you are suggesting we *invade* AMSAT HQ and *force* the Board of Director's to authorize this project?
Maybe you are referring to a different Bacon's Law. Sounds kind of
over
the top to me.
Respectfully,
John
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 7:12 AM Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB <
amsat-bb@amsat.org>
wrote:
Somewhere in AMSAT there is someone who has "Project Managed" long
enough
(or has access to process-flow diagrams) and can publish a generic
work
breakdown of both the steps and resources needed to put a highly
elliptical
(presumably less expensive) or Geostationary (presumably more
expensive)
bird into orbit and manage it.
If that person (or people) could publish that along with a
"checkmark"
next to the items that are "already in place", "in active
progress", and
"needs sponsor/enthusiast" then we are more likely to fill-in the
gaps.
Remember the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game (a.k.a. "Bacon's
Law")?
Let's play it out here! Ev, W2EV
On Tuesday, July 30, 2019, 6:15:19 PM EDT, Jerry Buxton viaAMSAT-BB <
amsat-bb@amsat.org> wrote:
On 7/28/2019 18:46, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB wrote:
What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and
AO-40 type
goals? Actually, from my perspective right now the top barrier is orbital debris regulations. GOLF-1 isn't going where I wanted to go
because the
enforcement has become stringent and a hot topic worldwide. We
can't
license or launch anything that doesn't de-orbit within 25 years
and a
HEO orbit (GTO actually, keeping it simple for this point) is
likely to
last "too long" by itself. There are options available for deorbit
BUT
the kicker right now is that they have to be proven and approved by
the
FCC. In that we know of no such device(s) available at this time, keeping within the current expectations of 3U. A change in size
(6U)
might yield some possibilities but I know of none there either,
right
now. We have been discussing and working with both NASA and FCC for possibilities. If something is available whether drag or
propulsion,
then we get into the cost issue not to mention the price of a
launch to
a GTO which is currently around $900k MSRP. If we had a million
bucks
and approved device(s) were available right now that fit within a $1 million budget then we would be pursuing that.
Another option is to find a launch with a low enough perigee to naturally decay in 25 years, but whether earning an ELaNa launch or buying one, we will always be secondary payload and don't have a
lot of
say in specific orbit parameters.
One more option is rideshare, and that is also in active discussion. The point there would be that the onus of orbital debris compliance
is
on the satellite we hitch a ride with, although that also goes into
not
having a lot of say on the final orbit not to mention satisfying a primary payload that everything will be just fine if they take us along. And then again, there's likely cost there too... We have
some
options that wouldn't necessarily require lots of money, they just
won't
be happening today.
Other possibilities? As far as I know we are pursuing the current options available per NASA and FCC, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other possibilities. If you have any, keep in mind that
building
a good case for use of whatever the possibility might be is key to gaining any approval. And 90% probability that whatever will get
you
back in less than 25 years is a tough challenge.
We are bucking a trend, general CubeSat missions are happy with
going
lower or from ISS, and bucking the trend not new with AMSAT but it
is
new in this world today because of the regulation and stakes as
well as
the fact that most everyone we deal with has no knowledge of AMSAT beyond the record the we have created and grown in the last 4 years
of
launches. We are not magically known just because we launched some pretty cool satellites in the past. Hopefully we will be known by
more
through our continued contact, cooperation, and "by the book"
production
and delivery of CubeSats with NASA, FCC, launch integrators, and
others
who we look to for these launch opportunities.
Or get a bunch of money because that probably is the second biggest barrier...
Jerry Buxton, NØJY
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum
available
to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
Opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official
views of
AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
program!
Subscription settings:
https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum
available
to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
Opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official
views of
AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
program!
Subscription settings:
https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
Opinions expressed
are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views
of AMSAT-NA.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
program!
Subscription settings:
https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Bacon == Man Candy ;-)
-- 73 de JoAnne K9JKM k9jkm@amsat.org
Hello Dave,
You raise a topic that comes up often. Sometimes the discussion does not get anywhere and sometimes exhaustive lists of ideas are compared and discussed. I'd like to refer you to the most exhaustive recent discussion regarding HEO/GEO which ran on the QRZ.com forums:
https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/yes-we-do-need-want-a-geo-sat-with-...
- or- use https://tinyurl.com/HEO-GEO-Satellite-Discussion for an abbreviated URL in case the e-mail system clobbers the long link.
-- 73 de JoAnne K9JKM k9jkm@amsat.org
VERY informative link, JoAnne. Thank you for posting it (especially for those of us who just recently re-joined the list after many years of pursuing other radio-interests). Ev, W2EV
On Sunday, July 28, 2019, 8:03:31 PM EDT, JoAnne K9JKM via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
Hello Dave,
You raise a topic that comes up often. Sometimes the discussion does not get anywhere and sometimes exhaustive lists of ideas are compared and discussed. I'd like to refer you to the most exhaustive recent discussion regarding HEO/GEO which ran on the QRZ.com forums:
https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/yes-we-do-need-want-a-geo-sat-with-...
- or- use https://tinyurl.com/HEO-GEO-Satellite-Discussion for an abbreviated URL in case the e-mail system clobbers the long link.
-- 73 de JoAnne K9JKM k9jkm@amsat.org
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Hi,
Thanks JoAnne, I was not aware that the debate was already ON on other forums, lot of info and interesting ideas.
Hopefully, we will find some generous sponsor if all in every country use their personal contact and influence to convince.
73
Jean Marc (3B8DU)
On Jul 30, 2019, at 2:56 PM, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
VERY informative link, JoAnne. Thank you for posting it (especially for those of us who just recently re-joined the list after many years of pursuing other radio-interests). Ev, W2EV
On Sunday, July 28, 2019, 8:03:31 PM EDT, JoAnne K9JKM via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
Hello Dave,
You raise a topic that comes up often. Sometimes the discussion does not get anywhere and sometimes exhaustive lists of ideas are compared and discussed. I'd like to refer you to the most exhaustive recent discussion regarding HEO/GEO which ran on the QRZ.com forums:
https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/yes-we-do-need-want-a-geo-sat-with-...
- or- use https://tinyurl.com/HEO-GEO-Satellite-Discussion for an abbreviated URL in case the e-mail system clobbers the long link.
-- 73 de JoAnne K9JKM k9jkm@amsat.org
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Hopefully, we will find some generous sponsor if all in every country use their personal contact and influence to convince.
My thinking is that people who have $1M, or $10M to donate are usually looking to give to a cause that they believe in, a cause which "makes a difference". Examples may include hunger, poverty, refugees, saving an endangered species, or perhaps climate. Somehow building an expensive satellite for hobbyists does not rise to this threshold even if we promise to teach school children about space.
Amateur radio needs to aim high to compete with the causes that "make a difference".
-- 73 de JoAnne K9JKM k9jkm@amsat.org
On 2019-07-30 09:56, JoAnne K9JKM via AMSAT-BB wrote:
... even if we promise to teach school children about space.
Amateur radio needs to aim high to compete with the causes that "make a difference".
JoAnne,
This resonates with me, as I see a general decline in the ability of newly minted engineers coming out of our "higher education" institutions. Too many distractions have made the average youngster impatient, sloppy, and poorly focused.
One could blame "the web", the proliferation of handheld devices, online multi-player gaming, etc. However you slice it, amateur radio just isn't seen as interesting anymore. We, as a culture, have lost the initiative to climb the mountain just because it is there.
I think that teaching a new generation of kids about radio, down to the circuit level with hands-on experiments, is a worthy endeavor. Building a CW (or even DSB for 10 meters) transmitter and a direct-conversion receiver can get a newly minted Novice on the air quickly.
However, we, as the amateur radio community, need to focus and immerse ourselves in the technology so that we can be effective teachers. If you lack the drive to dig into building, then be the Elmer that helps a potential or new ham to make her/his first contact on HF.
We need more W1FBs, W7ZOIs, W1GHZs, ... Yes, it's easy to go buy a $25 HT, but the youngster will never know the feeling of personal satisfaction by building something, debugging it, learning from mistakes, and getting it to work. Perhaps, one of those fledgling experimenters will someday become the donor that helps us launch the $1M satellite.
So, off my soapbox now.
--- Zach N0ZGO
On 7/30/2019 11:34, Zach Metzinger via AMSAT-BB wrote:
This resonates with me, as I see a general decline in the ability of newly minted engineers coming out of our "higher education" institutions. Too many distractions have made the average youngster impatient, sloppy, and poorly focused.
I'm not commenting either way on this observation, but it did make me think of another consideration in the return to HEO or for that matter, non-LEO and anything with a hefty price tag. There has been a fair amount of outcry over not so much the failure of AO-95's receive capability and yes we are still working on possibilities to help determine what went wrong or perhaps, get it working (I'm an optimist) but take that to the level of a $1M or more project and the scrutiny probably becomes pretty hard to bear, as you can imagine.
Given the money to do a HEO it is also necessary to exercise the caution and care to make sure you succeed, lest a mistake cripple the satellite and run off half the membership kind of like AO-40's unfortunate tale, not to mention running off investors. That takes a bunch of time and dedicated volunteers who have the expertise and stick around long enough to make it work and pass along the knowledge. To my knowledge, all of the prior HEO took a lot of time, money, and effort. I would be happy to be involved with such a well subsidized effort but I honestly don't see it happening quickly in terms of member-years, although 5 or possibly more years in the "construction" business is nothing and no matter how many years, is always amazingly short.
Just sayin', return to HEO is as much my desire as anyone else and I still have my AO-10/13/40 antennas so I have every incentive to succeed! (That's partially a joke, son.) It just may not be fast, it has to be careful, and it sure has to be a mission set in solid requirements from the get-go and free of politics or personal desires to change the course once the requirements are written and design begins. And with volunteers, that's not always as easy as you might think, especially because they come and go. Volunteers are in my experience, less inclined to stay around the longer times needed for things like this, at least 'these days'. Look at how many worked long and hard at AMSAT's prior HEO and projects. And these satellite things, they will frustrate and contradict you every step of the way. It's almost like they resist being easy, perfect. They are the embodiment of Capt. Edward A. Murphy's law. Ya gotta love it!
Jerry Buxton, NØJY
Dave,
Think the simple answer to get back to MEO/GEO/HEO has ultimately money, free rides are hard, QO-100 happened thanks to Qatar footing the bill, but you've had plenty responses to that.
Your comment about DX, There's still DX to be had on LEO, I know Chris NK1K has been doing really well working DXCCs and probably isn't far off 100, however I can say in my own experience there's still DX to be had I moved QTH and more importantly DXCC 2 years ago from Oxford, England to Elgin, Scotland (If you have bought Speyside whisky its on my doorstep)
I'm sitting around 70 DXCCs worked and nearly 300+ squares you can check my live grid map at https://logbooks.2m0sql.com/2m0sql/index.php/gridsquares/satellites
Note thats all LEO, not QO-100 still finishing off my ground station.
See you on the birds!
Peter, 2M0SQL
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 00:06, David J. Schmocker via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
Everyone: Solution/recommendation: HEO ASAP (yes I am aware of GOLF) to make DX possible and bring in a new 'market' (revenue) and interest level to AMSAT.
Perspective (from an active and avid ham who is still on the sidelines about satellites) is:
disclaimer first: (if this offends anyone, I apologize in advance; for we all have varying interests).. and diversity is good).
My new very capable all-mode satellite radio and two new antennas (a G3RUH Helix and a WiMo 2m RHCP) are still in the box.. why?
- I am also building a large EME array that's all-consuming, and I have
yet to find a suitable (mechanically balanced) satellite rotor solution (and lack the time to build my own).
- Currently I see very little DX possible on satellites; therefore my
interest level in satellites is poor to moderate at best.
- My QTH has 60 foot trees and so putting something near ground here is
not feasible to work the pass-ends needed for DX.
I realize HEO is expensive.. but having DX possible would bring in a whole new 'market.' (revenue) DXers have money (consider the cost of current DXpeditions to places like Bouvet and view their operating budget and funding sources)
Again, I DO NOT mean to offend anyone with any other interests.. just stating my humble perspective.
OK.. if I did somehow offend anyone, I am sorry.. flames to me personally, not the list please..
very 73,
Dave KJ9I
P.S. I am not running for any AMSAT role.. merely stating my view that seems to be absent mostly from the traffic I've observed on the AMSAT-BB
On 7/28/19 10:31 AM, Ray Soifer via AMSAT-BB wrote:
I am not a candidate for the AMSAT BoD (been there, done that) nor am I endorsing or opposing anyone. Most of you know me; if not, please see my QRZ.com page. As the the then EVP, it was my fate to be Acting President during the failure and partial recovery of AO-40. AMSAT's basic problem is financial. Universities and even high schools get NASA up.money to build and launch Cubesats, while AMSAT's limited resources are slowly drying up.
I don't have a solution, but I am not running for the BoD. I urge those who are to put their solutions forward, not just their gripes. 73 Ray W2RS _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
participants (14)
-
David J. Schmocker -
Ev Tupis -
H. Stephen Nipper -
Jean Marc Momple -
Jerry Buxton -
JoAnne K9JKM -
JoAnne Maenpaa -
John Brier -
John Kludt -
Michelle Thompson -
Paul Stoetzer -
Peter Goodhall (2M0SQL) -
Ray Soifer -
Zach Metzinger