On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:58:30PM -0500, Rocky Jones wrote:
That is not a flaw in my argument, it was a fact. As best I understand it, and it has been sometime since I looked at it in any depth, the flaw in the AO-40 rocket motor was that a procedure was missed in preping the motor for flight.
This is a deviation from your previous posting where you linked the demise of AO40 to it being a "super sat which was going to do things that were simply out of reach of all but a very few hams (40ghz? or whatever it was)".
Clearly the kind of mistake that caused the catastrophic failure could have happened on any spacecraft assembled by any organization.
The folks building /E have figured it out and returned to a rather robust "simple" satellite...More then one homebuilder of airplanes (garage planes) has found in someway that their modifications were mistakes (the lucky ones when the DER's shut them down).
You can call it "simple" if you like but a) it remains firmly affixed to earth and b) it is being sold to the German government as an adjunct to a mission to Mars. If you want to call an interplanetary mission "simple" that's your call, but P3E was scheduled to be launched years ago to support the P5 mission that was supposed to launch in 2009 and I'll buy the first beer whenever either of those fly...
I dont know this for a fact but would suspect that one reason launches are hard to come by for anything with rocket propulsion in it (ie a hamsat with a rocket engine in it) is what happen with AO-40. If I owned the rocket that failure would scare me
For the last time (from me, I promise) we have been told in no uncertain terms that the cost for a launch to GTO that would carry a craft of the size required to provide a happy medium of solar panels and antennas will cost no less than $6 million US and maybe as much as $8 million.
Years ago (has it been almost a decade now?) when we first started talking about 'Eagle' it took AMSAT-NA two years to raise $90,000 US. At that rate, it would require a century for us to raise enough money to get back to GTO.
Facts on the ground have already determined the outcome of this debate. Whether or not AMSAT members (and officers for that matter) are willing to accept reality is an entirely different matter.
Many actually prefer the blue pill...
Jeff...
Clearly the kind of mistake that caused the catastrophic failure could have happened on any spacecraft assembled by any organization.
nope.
OK anyone has a statistical chance of dying or any project has a statistical chance of failing but the more complex a project is the more likely it is to fail...and AO-40 as it grew more complex needed larger size which then needed a more powerful rocket engine...which ...
this is "mission creep" (or more correctly design creep) and as I noted it is a common cause of failure among homebuilders. Unless you are "rolling your own" (ie doing the aerodynamics yourself) most home builders build something that professionals have at least deigned. Where they get into trouble is when they start adding things and making the project outside the scope of what was well understood.
had AO-40 not been "supersat" it would not have needed the larger engine...
You can call it "simple" if you like but a) it remains firmly affixed to earth and b) it is being sold to the German government as an adjunct to a mission to Mars. If you want to call an interplanetary mission "simple" that's your call, but P3E was scheduled to be launched years ago to support the P5 mission that was supposed to launch in 2009 and I'll buy the first beer whenever either of those fly...
The one to Mars will never fly.Its a fantasy project..but 3E eventually will. I think.
For the last time (from me, I promise) we have been told in no uncertain terms that the cost for a launch to GTO that would carry a craft of the size required to provide a happy medium of solar panels and antennas will cost no less than $6 million US and maybe as much as $8 million.
If that is the case then we are, after 3E gets its launch done in HEO sats...a reasonable hope is that with some new launch vehicles coming on IE Falcon9 etc there might be some opportunities for "reduced rate" launches...but who knows. What I wonder is if there is any reluctance on the part of launch vehicle providers after the 40 incident to let "amateur propulsion" ride on their vehicle. It is after all "rocket science".
Look my only argument is that reality should guide where the dollars are spent, since as you point out, the dollars are not going as far as they use to. I bet suitsat is going to run (after all cost are figured in) around 50,000 or so.
thanks for a pleasant discussion...can pick this up later tonight but am off for a little "Mission creep" myself. Got the 51 foot tower up on the new place at Santa Fe, but the XYL bought the tower of my dreams and we are going to get it on its concrete stand today.
later
Robert WB5MZO
_________________________________________________________________ Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHY...
The engine used in AO-40 was the same model used in all previous P3 series satellites.
AO-40's size was determined by the space donated by the ESA.
If the AMSAT-DL Mars mission is a fantasy then P3 may never fly as its launch is to be funded by that mission.
Suitsat seems perfectly reasonable as it is a UV linear transponder with the government paying for the launch. This is what most AMSAT members want.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rocky Jones" [email protected] To: [email protected]; "Amsat BB" [email protected] Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 19:30 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
Jeff...
Clearly the kind of mistake that caused the catastrophic failure could have happened on any spacecraft assembled by any organization.
nope.
OK anyone has a statistical chance of dying or any project has a statistical chance of failing but the more complex a project is the more likely it is to fail...and AO-40 as it grew more complex needed larger size which then needed a more powerful rocket engine...which ...
this is "mission creep" (or more correctly design creep) and as I noted it is a common cause of failure among homebuilders. Unless you are "rolling your own" (ie doing the aerodynamics yourself) most home builders build something that professionals have at least deigned. Where they get into trouble is when they start adding things and making the project outside the scope of what was well understood.
had AO-40 not been "supersat" it would not have needed the larger engine...
You can call it "simple" if you like but a) it remains firmly affixed to earth and b) it is being sold to the German government as an adjunct to a mission to Mars. If you want to call an interplanetary mission "simple" that's your call, but P3E was scheduled to be launched years ago to support the P5 mission that was supposed to launch in 2009 and I'll buy the first beer whenever either of those fly...
The one to Mars will never fly.Its a fantasy project..but 3E eventually will. I think.
For the last time (from me, I promise) we have been told in no uncertain terms that the cost for a launch to GTO that would carry a craft of the size required to provide a happy medium of solar panels and antennas will cost no less than $6 million US and maybe as much as $8 million.
If that is the case then we are, after 3E gets its launch done in HEO sats...a reasonable hope is that with some new launch vehicles coming on IE Falcon9 etc there might be some opportunities for "reduced rate" launches...but who knows. What I wonder is if there is any reluctance on the part of launch vehicle providers after the 40 incident to let "amateur propulsion" ride on their vehicle. It is after all "rocket science".
Look my only argument is that reality should guide where the dollars are spent, since as you point out, the dollars are not going as far as they use to. I bet suitsat is going to run (after all cost are figured in) around 50,000 or so.
thanks for a pleasant discussion...can pick this up later tonight but am off for a little "Mission creep" myself. Got the 51 foot tower up on the new place at Santa Fe, but the XYL bought the tower of my dreams and we are going to get it on its concrete stand today.
later
Robert WB5MZO
Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHY... _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected] Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rocky Jones" [email protected] To: [email protected]; "Amsat BB" [email protected] Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 2:30 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
Jeff...
Clearly the kind of mistake that caused the catastrophic failure could have happened on any spacecraft assembled by any organization.
nope.
OK anyone has a statistical chance of dying or any project has a statistical chance of failing but the more complex a project is the more likely it is to fail...and AO-40 as it grew more complex needed larger size which then needed a more powerful rocket engine...which ...
The explosion on AO-40 had NOTHING to do with the size of the motor: it was the result of HUMAN FAILURE.
[snip]
If that is the case then we are, after 3E gets its launch done in HEO sats...a reasonable hope is that with some new launch vehicles coming on IE Falcon9 etc there might be some opportunities for "reduced rate" launches...but who knows. What I wonder is if there is any reluctance on the part of launch vehicle providers after the 40 incident to let "amateur propulsion" ride on their vehicle. It is after all "rocket science".
Why would any launch provider have any qualms about flying a payload with a motor that a) flew successfully several times previously and b) when it DID fail, did so LONG after separation from the launch vehicle?????
So far, Ariane has a far higher failure rate than any payload that it has carried. In fact, that's probably true of just about EVERY launch provider.
More payloads have been "killed" by their launch vehicles than the other way around...
A couple of responses come to mind NOT DIRECTED AT ANYONE IN PARTICULAR (sorry for yelling)
1) If ham's left AMSAT because of AO-40 failure we cannot do anything about that. That was their choice. We need to be thankful for the many who have stayed with their talent and $. 2) Remember NASA's recent failed flights to mars a few years ago. How about the one that failed because of the feet to meter conversion problem. Failure is a fact of life. We are humans, we fail. We learn from the past and move on. Having been an engineer who was accused of failing on a big project I can tell you it can happen to you (the collective you). It's life. Unless we have ALL the information from the post failure investigation (which I suspect we don't) since we cannot draw firm conclusions. Seem the current documentation quoted was a little fuzzy. 3) I think SuitSat2 is a great place to test hardware and have fun while it lasts. Thank you Russia for working with us, wish our government worked with us (I know why they can't). I can say that I worked through a hand launched 4) This has been a good discussion to follow.
73 to all Dave WB7DRU
--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
-
Dave Donaldson -
George Henry -
Jeff Davis -
John B. Stephensen -
Rocky Jones