Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more interest and revenue
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
We would all love to have another HEO satellite, however the ecosystem in which we live today has changed a great deal since AMSAT built AO-10, AO-13 and AO-40 a couple of decades ago:
1. The launch market has become saturated with small satellites. In the 1970's, 80's and 90's, AMSAT was often the only entity that was willing to put a satellite on top of a new untested launch vehicle. Today every university on the planet has its own satellite project, along with more and more high schools and even a few elementary schools. AMSAT is working with some of these universities to carry ham radio transponders on their satellites, but the university satellite mission is different from our mission, they just want to throw together something fast and cheap that can launch before the students graduate, and they don't need to get to HEO to do that. Long term reliability is not part of their equation.
Commercial and Government entities have also discovered the value of small satellites, and the launch market has reacted to that by charging market-based prices for launches that AMSAT used to get for free or at highly discounted rates. We have to compete against commercial enterprises funded by venture capital, and because of the non-commercial nature of amateur radio, we can't use the same business model of charging the end users to recover our costs. NASA can and does launch small Cubesats for educational and scientific purposes that fit into the NASA mission, but amateur radio communications by itself does not advance the NASA mission. We need to find partners in the educational and scientific world to get launches through this program.
Because Cubesats have dominated the satellite market, there are no more affordable launches for satellites the size of AO-13, let alone AO-40. We are now faced with the need to cram the functionality of an AO-13 satellite into a 3U (or possibly 6U) Cubesat. We may or we may not be able to do that, there is a limit to the ability to cram 50 Kg of payload into a 5 Kg box. While Moore's Law has enabled today's electronics technology to be smaller and lighter than it was two decades ago, remember that satellites are driven by Shannon's Law, not by Moore's Law. We need to generate electrical power and we need antenna gain to carry out a satellite communications mission. AO-13 was a simple spinning satellite that was big enough to accept the inefficiencies of off-pointed solar arrays. On a Cubesat we would need to keep the smaller solar arrays precisely aimed at the Sun and the antennas aimed at the Earth, and this requires sophisticated three axis control systems.
2. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that came into force about 20 years ago have placed severe restrictions on our ability to work with foreign partners. AO-40 was built by a partnership of more than a dozen countries all contributing parts, subsystems and money to get it done. Today we are cut off from the rest of the world. Building a wall around the USA has never made us safe or prosperous.
3. Orbital debris regulations now require satellite builders to prove to the FCC that the satellite will reenter in 25 years or less. In highly inclined elliptical orbits such as AO-13 we can possibly exploit solar and lunar resonances that will bring down the satellite in a decade or two, but in the lower inclination GTO launches that are more common, we would be dependent on rocket thrust to provide the delta-V to lower the perigee. If you look at the NORAD catalog, most of the spent rocket bodies left in GTO remain there for a long time unless they are deliberately de-orbited.
All of these factors have lined up to make the AMSAT mission much more difficult than it was 20 years ago. Spaceflight is hard, and if we don't have the fortitude to meet the new challenges, than we will not be part of it in the future. I believe that we can and we will have new HEO satellites but we won't be doing it under the rules that we operated under in the past. If somebody wanted to write a check for $20 million, we could buy a HEO launch to whatever orbit we wanted, but in the absence of such support we will have to use cleverness and guile to get it done. I have constantly reminded the satellite professionals that it was the hams who created the secondary launch market that they now enjoy, but I have have so far not seen much interest from them in reciprocating that favor.
73, Dan Schultz N8FGV
Good summary Dan.
I have nothing major to add, but would like to make two statements:
1) through the VT/AMSAT partnership in the past we explored opportunities for both HEO and GEO missions. The most 'real' of those opportunities involved a possible GEO mission on an Air Force satellite, with VT engineers bridging the military/ham radio sides. HEO was a briefer opportunity, and sadly neither of the opportunities panned out (though technically GEO is 'on hold indefinitely'.....). From my work with the Hume Center at VT and the Space@VT group, I will attempt to keep my eyes open for similar opportunities in the future, and if something appears to have 'meat on the bone' as a target of opportunity and potential rideshare/secondary payload, I'll bring it to AMSAT's attention. I would encourage others to do the same if they are in a similar position........it may be we don't pay for a HEO/GEO, but rather an odd confluence of events makes something materialize in our favor....and we should be ready, willing, and able to take advantage of those situations....
2) I also constantly remind folks (from students to gov't officials when the opportunity presents itself) about Dan's last statement that Ham radio made the secondary launch market. OSCAR-1 launched 4 years and change after Sputnik-1, and I love watching eyes widen when folks realize what that means (especially the gov't types).
-Zach, KJ4QLP
P.S. LOVE the positive direction of this thread...
Daniel,
One way around all the issues you mentioned is may be to "copy with pride" the QO-100 GEO which has changed Radio Amateur satellites operations this part of the world.
To explain; we are now we are back to experimentation building PA’s, feeds etc… also enabling new modes which where not possible before (ATV in my case). For 3B8 this is fantastic as in spite active on LEO's since 1978, not much to do as we are in the middle of the ocean, only a few guys reachable on LEO good passes. Now we can QSO with half of the world on a bird, loud and clear 24/7 e.g.
What I mean is that trying to partner with some commercial operators to have a HAM transponder on board of their satellite may be a solution, some may even sponsor if we are convincing enough. More it would be fantastic to have worldwide coverage with say 3 GEO’s, just a vision.
Some food for thought.
73
Jean Marc (3B8DU)
On Jul 29, 2019, at 6:08 PM, Daniel Schultz via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
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
We would all love to have another HEO satellite, however the ecosystem in which we live today has changed a great deal since AMSAT built AO-10, AO-13 and AO-40 a couple of decades ago:
- The launch market has become saturated with small satellites. In the
1970's, 80's and 90's, AMSAT was often the only entity that was willing to put a satellite on top of a new untested launch vehicle. Today every university on the planet has its own satellite project, along with more and more high schools and even a few elementary schools. AMSAT is working with some of these universities to carry ham radio transponders on their satellites, but the university satellite mission is different from our mission, they just want to throw together something fast and cheap that can launch before the students graduate, and they don't need to get to HEO to do that. Long term reliability is not part of their equation.
Commercial and Government entities have also discovered the value of small satellites, and the launch market has reacted to that by charging market-based prices for launches that AMSAT used to get for free or at highly discounted rates. We have to compete against commercial enterprises funded by venture capital, and because of the non-commercial nature of amateur radio, we can't use the same business model of charging the end users to recover our costs. NASA can and does launch small Cubesats for educational and scientific purposes that fit into the NASA mission, but amateur radio communications by itself does not advance the NASA mission. We need to find partners in the educational and scientific world to get launches through this program.
Because Cubesats have dominated the satellite market, there are no more affordable launches for satellites the size of AO-13, let alone AO-40. We are now faced with the need to cram the functionality of an AO-13 satellite into a 3U (or possibly 6U) Cubesat. We may or we may not be able to do that, there is a limit to the ability to cram 50 Kg of payload into a 5 Kg box. While Moore's Law has enabled today's electronics technology to be smaller and lighter than it was two decades ago, remember that satellites are driven by Shannon's Law, not by Moore's Law. We need to generate electrical power and we need antenna gain to carry out a satellite communications mission. AO-13 was a simple spinning satellite that was big enough to accept the inefficiencies of off-pointed solar arrays. On a Cubesat we would need to keep the smaller solar arrays precisely aimed at the Sun and the antennas aimed at the Earth, and this requires sophisticated three axis control systems.
- The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that came into force
about 20 years ago have placed severe restrictions on our ability to work with foreign partners. AO-40 was built by a partnership of more than a dozen countries all contributing parts, subsystems and money to get it done. Today we are cut off from the rest of the world. Building a wall around the USA has never made us safe or prosperous.
- Orbital debris regulations now require satellite builders to prove to the
FCC that the satellite will reenter in 25 years or less. In highly inclined elliptical orbits such as AO-13 we can possibly exploit solar and lunar resonances that will bring down the satellite in a decade or two, but in the lower inclination GTO launches that are more common, we would be dependent on rocket thrust to provide the delta-V to lower the perigee. If you look at the NORAD catalog, most of the spent rocket bodies left in GTO remain there for a long time unless they are deliberately de-orbited.
All of these factors have lined up to make the AMSAT mission much more difficult than it was 20 years ago. Spaceflight is hard, and if we don't have the fortitude to meet the new challenges, than we will not be part of it in the future. I believe that we can and we will have new HEO satellites but we won't be doing it under the rules that we operated under in the past. If somebody wanted to write a check for $20 million, we could buy a HEO launch to whatever orbit we wanted, but in the absence of such support we will have to use cleverness and guile to get it done. I have constantly reminded the satellite professionals that it was the hams who created the secondary launch market that they now enjoy, but I have have so far not seen much interest from them in reciprocating that favor.
73, Dan Schultz N8FGV
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 (3)
-
Daniel Schultz -
Jean Marc Momple -
Zach Leffke