N4HY stated
We are spending a significant amount of money THIS YEAR producing a hardware frame for the Eagle spacecraft. The electronic systems are very similar. Intelsat will have more capability than Eagle as we currently understand what we THINK the situation is because we will have a) a better antenna platform and b) much more power.
One thing the members should realize is that the "amateur radio" portion of the satellite programs constitutes only about 10% of the programmatic effort. IMHO, if things go in the direction I'd like to see, the GEOstationary P4 possibility has several other advantages to be added to Bob's list:
c) A major portion of the P3 satellite effort, going all the way back to P3A (that achieved an aquatic orbit way back in 1980), has involved the need for us to become real "rocket scientists" by flying our own propulsion systems to achieve the HEO orbit. With the GEO P4possibility, someone else worries about the motors. That lops off (at least) 30-40% of the 90% non-radio overhead (and helps to prevent ulcers among the volunteer builders).
d) Flying as a piggyback on somebody else's spacecraft means that they will handle all the attitude control problems. This removes the need for earth sensors, magnetorquers and an incredibly labor intensive effort to use the magnetorquers to actually point the spacecraft (remember that you are trying to push a gyroscope and all pushes cause the spin axis to precess). We had to be really good at pointing the spacecraft because the spin axis has to be properly aligned in the orbit plane in just the right direction in order to fire the kick motor!
e) (expanding on Bob's item b) -- The current GEO plans would have the main spacecraft provide us with power. The solar panels needed for EAGLE would have cost us upwards of $2 million (unless we were to find a really generous sugar-daddy). And the power levels we have been discussing with the GEO supplier are about twice what we would have been able to generate on EAGLE, meaning signals will be stronger.
f) There has been a lot of discussion here about launch availability and cost. So far, we have had a hard time identifying an affordable launch for a single EAGLE. It appears that the GEO piggyback may well cost LESS than an EAGLE launch to GTO.
g) An even more important aspect of (f) is that these launches are a renewable resource. Unless we blow the opportunity badly, we can launch additional payloads every year or so. (Some info on the most recent launch in October is seen at http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/release.asp?prid=629). The places we might be able to get a ride to can be seen by clicking on either the HTML or FLASH item at http://www.intelsat.com/network/satellite/.
h) The pricetag for either EAGLE or a GEO P4 may well be more than we, as amateurs, are able to raise. We are actively pursuing new funding sources. Right now, one of the most promising is from the US Gov't under the aegis of Homeland Security. Amateur Radio is well known as a very competent "first responder" of communications services. The HS people learned from Katrina that there is a need for 24/7 rapid response capabilities that can cover a sizable area where the infrastructure has collapsed. Some commercial sources have responded with multi-Billion dollar proposals. We think that they will be responsive to a grant request of a few percent of this, including the provision of ground terminals which would be deployed at a number of locations around the country (like at your QTH?).
As a Board member I have wholeheartedly embraced the P4 GEO concept as the best (and perhaps only) act in town. I hope that the rest of the AMSAT members are similarly enthusiastic about the idea. As of now, it still is only an idea. It may not happen. But I can guarantee that we are guaranteed to fail if we don't try; and to try we need to know that the community is behind the effort. Remember that AMSAT is an all-volunteer effort, and YOU ARE AMSAT.
Season Greetings and wishes for a successful 2008 -- Tom Clark, K3IO
One of the possibilities I have not seen relayed well from the meetings to general knowledge is that it may be possible for Intelsat to attach Eagle to one of their satellites, and drop us off in GTO on their way to GEO. This possibility alone is worth working this opportunity out to it's conclusion.
It has become very apparent to me that we will not fund a HEO solely on our current membership donations. Ever. We have to go for the outside funding Tom mentioned, and the best way to do that is a simple, tool-like application like a GEO, geared heavily towards EMCOMM. Too many of us have taken the wait and see approach when it comes to supporting a HEO project. The money has to come first, then the satellite gets built and launched, not the other way around.
73, Drew KO4MA
Given this additional information, is there any possibility of launching Eagle on the way up *and* having a payload on the Intelsat, as was previously mentioned? Talk about having your cake and eating it, too :)
Ollie AJ1O
Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
One of the possibilities I have not seen relayed well from the meetings to general knowledge is that it may be possible for Intelsat to attach Eagle to one of their satellites, and drop us off in GTO on their way to GEO. This possibility alone is worth working this opportunity out to it's conclusion.
...
73, Drew KO4MA
It is certainly possible, although with Intelsat launching multiple times per year it isn't really necessary. It is also likely we would not need a motor for Eagle in this case as well. W4SCO expressed doubts at Intelsat willingness to do this, when in fact they were advertising their willingness when we found the opportunity.
The following is not addressed to you Ollie: Everyone needs to step back and take a few deep breaths, and cut it with the accusations of impropriety before things get really ugly. Some of the accusations have really been uninformed and out of line by any standard. The BOD and leadership are doing EVERYTHING they can to get something going. The four BOD seats and the alternate basically went uncontested last election. If anyone thinks they can do better, by all means, run. I did. It's not as simple as many seem to think.
73, Drew KO4MA
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ollie Eisman" ollie@earthrobot.com To: "AMSAT BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:53 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
Given this additional information, is there any possibility of launching Eagle on the way up *and* having a payload on the Intelsat, as was previously mentioned? Talk about having your cake and eating it, too :)
Ollie AJ1O
Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
One of the possibilities I have not seen relayed well from the meetings to general knowledge is that it may be possible for Intelsat to attach Eagle to one of their satellites, and drop us off in GTO on their way to GEO. This possibility alone is worth working this opportunity out to it's conclusion.
...
73, Drew KO4MA
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Then, it is time to make amsat a for-profit organization.
On Dec 12, 2007, at 10:08 PM, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
The money has to come first, then the satellite gets built and launched, not the other way around.
73, Drew KO4MA
I tend to respond better to non-anonymous suggestions.
73, Drew KO4MA
----- Original Message ----- From: "MKM" starlight04@gmail.com To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:56 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
Then, it is time to make amsat a for-profit organization.
On Dec 12, 2007, at 10:08 PM, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
The money has to come first, then the satellite gets built and launched, not the other way around.
73, Drew KO4MA
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
At 10:56 PM 12/12/2007, you wrote:
Then, it is time to make amsat a for-profit organization.
On Dec 12, 2007, at 10:08 PM, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
The money has to come first, then the satellite gets built and launched, not the other way around.
73, Drew KO4MA
WHY? A non profit can raise money. If the HEO costs X then I think we can safely raise X without having to become a for profit corp.
Les
That AMSAT's non-profit status is an impediment to our doing business like any other corporation is a common misperception. We can hire employees, take contracts, earn money, spend money and, in general, act as any other corporation if we choose. It is in what we do with the money we earn that differentiates us. We don't distribute the money to the owners through dividends. Instead we reinvest all our funds into our educational missions (like launching satellites).
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of MKM Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:56 PM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
Then, it is time to make amsat a for-profit organization.
On Dec 12, 2007, at 10:08 PM, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
The money has to come first, then the satellite gets built and launched, not the other way around.
73, Drew KO4MA
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
I doubt that would ever happen. If I was the CEO of the launch sat i would never let an "amateur" rocket motor hitch a ride on my multi million dollar bird. Just like NASA won't let us do it.
If you can think of a way for us to get from GTO without a motor and fuel then it might happen.
Les W4SCO www.scoincsoftware.com
At 10:08 PM 12/12/2007, you wrote:
One of the possibilities I have not seen relayed well from the meetings to general knowledge is that it may be possible for Intelsat to attach Eagle to one of their satellites, and drop us off in GTO on their way to GEO. This possibility alone is worth working this opportunity out to it's conclusion.
It has become very apparent to me that we will not fund a HEO solely on our current membership donations. Ever. We have to go for the outside funding Tom mentioned, and the best way to do that is a simple, tool-like application like a GEO, geared heavily towards EMCOMM. Too many of us have taken the wait and see approach when it comes to supporting a HEO project. The money has to come first, then the satellite gets built and launched, not the other way around.
73, Drew KO4MA
Les,
Intelsat has already told me that it is OK to attach a satellite with motor, tank and fuel. In fact, they offered to fuel our satellite with the excess fuel from filling their own tanks.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of sco@sco-inc.com Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:28 AM To: Andrew Glasbrenner Cc: amsat-BB Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
I doubt that would ever happen. If I was the CEO of the launch sat i would never let an "amateur" rocket motor hitch a ride on my multi million dollar bird. Just like NASA won't let us do it.
If you can think of a way for us to get from GTO without a motor and fuel then it might happen.
Les W4SCO www.scoincsoftware.com
At 10:08 PM 12/12/2007, you wrote:
One of the possibilities I have not seen relayed well from the meetings to general knowledge is that it may be possible for Intelsat to attach Eagle
to
one of their satellites, and drop us off in GTO on their way to GEO. This possibility alone is worth working this opportunity out to it's conclusion.
It has become very apparent to me that we will not fund a HEO solely on our current membership donations. Ever. We have to go for the outside funding Tom mentioned, and the best way to do that is a simple, tool-like application like a GEO, geared heavily towards EMCOMM. Too many of us have taken the wait and see approach when it comes to supporting a HEO project. The money has to come first, then the satellite gets built and launched,
not
the other way around.
73, Drew KO4MA
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
after AO-40 blew I would find it hard to believe that they would trust the success of their mission with another AO40 type sat onboard. Are they aware of our past track record?
Good if they let us.
Les
At 10:08 AM 12/13/2007, you wrote:
Les,
Intelsat has already told me that it is OK to attach a satellite with motor, tank and fuel. In fact, they offered to fuel our satellite with the excess fuel from filling their own tanks.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of sco@sco-inc.com Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:28 AM To: Andrew Glasbrenner Cc: amsat-BB Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
I doubt that would ever happen. If I was the CEO of the launch sat i would never let an "amateur" rocket motor hitch a ride on my multi million dollar bird. Just like NASA won't let us do it.
If you can think of a way for us to get from GTO without a motor and fuel then it might happen.
Les W4SCO www.scoincsoftware.com
At 10:08 PM 12/12/2007, you wrote:
One of the possibilities I have not seen relayed well from the meetings to general knowledge is that it may be possible for Intelsat to attach Eagle
to
one of their satellites, and drop us off in GTO on their way to GEO. This possibility alone is worth working this opportunity out to it's conclusion.
It has become very apparent to me that we will not fund a HEO solely on our current membership donations. Ever. We have to go for the outside funding Tom mentioned, and the best way to do that is a simple, tool-like application like a GEO, geared heavily towards EMCOMM. Too many of us have taken the wait and see approach when it comes to supporting a HEO project. The money has to come first, then the satellite gets built and launched,
not
the other way around.
73, Drew KO4MA
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Les,
Yes, they are aware of the fate of AO-40. They have had their own problems over the years and they understand that this is rocket science.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: sco@sco-inc.com [mailto:sco@sco-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:15 PM To: Rick Hambly (W2GPS) Cc: amsat-BB Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
after AO-40 blew I would find it hard to believe that they would trust the success of their mission with another AO40 type sat onboard. Are they aware of our past track record?
Good if they let us.
Les
At 10:08 AM 12/13/2007, you wrote:
Les,
Intelsat has already told me that it is OK to attach a satellite with
motor,
tank and fuel. In fact, they offered to fuel our satellite with the excess fuel from filling their own tanks.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of sco@sco-inc.com Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:28 AM To: Andrew Glasbrenner Cc: amsat-BB Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
I doubt that would ever happen. If I was the CEO of the launch sat i would never let an "amateur" rocket motor hitch a ride on my multi million dollar bird. Just like NASA won't let us do it.
If you can think of a way for us to get from GTO without a motor and fuel then it might happen.
Les W4SCO www.scoincsoftware.com
At 10:08 PM 12/12/2007, you wrote:
One of the possibilities I have not seen relayed well from the meetings
to
general knowledge is that it may be possible for Intelsat to attach Eagle
to
one of their satellites, and drop us off in GTO on their way to GEO. This possibility alone is worth working this opportunity out to it's
conclusion.
It has become very apparent to me that we will not fund a HEO solely on
our
current membership donations. Ever. We have to go for the outside funding Tom mentioned, and the best way to do that is a simple, tool-like application like a GEO, geared heavily towards EMCOMM. Too many of us
have
taken the wait and see approach when it comes to supporting a HEO
project.
The money has to come first, then the satellite gets built and launched,
not
the other way around.
73, Drew KO4MA
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
The failure of AO-40 was not a problem of "rocket science". It was caused by human stupidity ... not writing down what had to be removed before flight so if the only person who knew that info could not be available their backup would.
Les
At 12:25 PM 12/13/2007, you wrote:
Les,
Yes, they are aware of the fate of AO-40. They have had their own problems over the years and they understand that this is rocket science.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: sco@sco-inc.com [mailto:sco@sco-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:15 PM To: Rick Hambly (W2GPS) Cc: amsat-BB Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
after AO-40 blew I would find it hard to believe that they would trust the success of their mission with another AO40 type sat onboard. Are they aware of our past track record?
Good if they let us.
Les
At 10:08 AM 12/13/2007, you wrote:
Les,
Intelsat has already told me that it is OK to attach a satellite with
motor,
tank and fuel. In fact, they offered to fuel our satellite with the excess fuel from filling their own tanks.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of sco@sco-inc.com Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:28 AM To: Andrew Glasbrenner Cc: amsat-BB Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
I doubt that would ever happen. If I was the CEO of the launch sat i would never let an "amateur" rocket motor hitch a ride on my multi million dollar bird. Just like NASA won't let us do it.
If you can think of a way for us to get from GTO without a motor and fuel then it might happen.
Les W4SCO www.scoincsoftware.com
At 10:08 PM 12/12/2007, you wrote:
One of the possibilities I have not seen relayed well from the meetings
to
general knowledge is that it may be possible for Intelsat to attach Eagle
to
one of their satellites, and drop us off in GTO on their way to GEO. This possibility alone is worth working this opportunity out to it's
conclusion.
It has become very apparent to me that we will not fund a HEO solely on
our
current membership donations. Ever. We have to go for the outside funding Tom mentioned, and the best way to do that is a simple, tool-like application like a GEO, geared heavily towards EMCOMM. Too many of us
have
taken the wait and see approach when it comes to supporting a HEO
project.
The money has to come first, then the satellite gets built and launched,
not
the other way around.
73, Drew KO4MA
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Yet again, a statement based on no knowledge of the real situation. MOST space failures are caused by exactly this kind of thing. A wrench left behind and falling and puncturing a tank. Incomplete testing of this or that and a SUPPOSITION that it was "Okay". Satellites not bolted down when everyone assumed it was and a $100,000,000 satellite falls to the floor. These space things are extremely complex and if every system had to be tested to perfection, none could afford them. The goal of a good trained space/spacecraft engineer is to design robust systems that have the really supercritical things testable and the rest, well, the rules for that are in the adjoining testing manual (the local religious book, for prayer).
Bob
sco@sco-inc.com wrote:
The failure of AO-40 was not a problem of "rocket science". It was caused by human stupidity ... not writing down what had to be removed before flight so if the only person who knew that info could not be available their backup would.
Les
At 12:25 PM 12/13/2007, you wrote:
Les,
Yes, they are aware of the fate of AO-40. They have had their own problems over the years and they understand that this is rocket science.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
Hi all, I've got a Yaesu G-5500 AZ/EL rotor for sale. About 2 years old and in great shape. Asking $500.00 plus shipping. Contact me off list.
Rick
I'll agree with this completely. While we are NO AMSAT, we here at Near Space Sciences, (one of the balloon groups) have in the heat of the launch excitement have just plain forgot to turn something "ON"
Without a formal checklist, where everything must be checked off the list before liftoff, or lift off doesn't happen, something is bound to be missed. it happens on our simple payloads, i can not even imagine the complexity of a real AMSAT type of bird!
Joe WB9SBD
Robert McGwier wrote:
Yet again, a statement based on no knowledge of the real situation. MOST space failures are caused by exactly this kind of thing. A wrench left behind and falling and puncturing a tank. Incomplete testing of this or that and a SUPPOSITION that it was "Okay". Satellites not bolted down when everyone assumed it was and a $100,000,000 satellite falls to the floor. These space things are extremely complex and if every system had to be tested to perfection, none could afford them. The goal of a good trained space/spacecraft engineer is to design robust systems that have the really supercritical things testable and the rest, well, the rules for that are in the adjoining testing manual (the local religious book, for prayer).
Bob
Exactly!
And at the risk of repeating myself: The people checking off the list should have someone checking their work. In other words do not trust one individual to be failure-proof. In previous work environs I had at least two other individuals checking over my work to capture errors and oversights!
With a good checkoff procedure/list, thorough project plan, and enough folks to double or triple check (esp. critical steps) there should be a high confidence in things going right. ***in a perfect world***
73 Ed - KL7UW
At 08:15 AM 12/15/2007, Joe wrote:
I'll agree with this completely. While we are NO AMSAT, we here at Near Space Sciences, (one of the balloon groups) have in the heat of the launch excitement have just plain forgot to turn something "ON"
Without a formal checklist, where everything must be checked off the list before liftoff, or lift off doesn't happen, something is bound to be missed. it happens on our simple payloads, i can not even imagine the complexity of a real AMSAT type of bird!
Joe WB9SBD
Robert McGwier wrote:
Yet again, a statement based on no knowledge of the real situation. MOST space failures are caused by exactly this kind of thing. A wrench left behind and falling and puncturing a tank. Incomplete testing of this or that and a SUPPOSITION that it was "Okay". Satellites not bolted down when everyone assumed it was and a $100,000,000 satellite falls to the floor. These space things are extremely complex and if every system had to be tested to perfection, none could afford them. The goal of a good trained space/spacecraft engineer is to design robust systems that have the really supercritical things testable and the rest, well, the rules for that are in the adjoining testing manual (the local religious book, for prayer).
Bob
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
73, Ed - KL7UW ====================================== BP40IQ 50-MHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com 144-EME: FT-847, mgf-1801, 4x-xpol-20, 185w DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa@hotmail.com ======================================
I have in my possession the check list that was accomplished on the worst of our failures. This check list was signed, dated, and approved by the responsible authority. The <<missing item>> on the check list was argued over on site and never done. Check lists are not sufficient. They are a necessity but not enough. Systems need to be the simplest possible engineering design that will complete the task. The multiplicative probability of successes will then not result in a high probability of failure. This is (of course) not a perfect "law" since these are not independent probabilities but this definitely the system engineers "guide book to success". This is the first and last I will ever say on this particular matter. We have made mistakes but almost ALL of our mistakes are directly attributable to human failings and managerial fault lines. To me, this is mostly a dispassionate process. I do not treat foolishness lightly because that leads to a repeat of it but this is a tactic, not the goal.
Bob
Edward Cole wrote:
Exactly!
And at the risk of repeating myself: The people checking off the list should have someone checking their work. In other words do not trust one individual to be failure-proof. In previous work environs I had at least two other individuals checking over my work to capture errors and oversights!
With a good checkoff procedure/list, thorough project plan, and enough folks to double or triple check (esp. critical steps) there should be a high confidence in things going right. ***in a perfect world***
73 Ed - KL7UW
At 08:15 AM 12/15/2007, Joe wrote:
I'll agree with this completely. While we are NO AMSAT, we here at Near Space Sciences, (one of the balloon groups) have in the heat of the launch excitement have just plain forgot to turn something "ON"
Without a formal checklist, where everything must be checked off the list before liftoff, or lift off doesn't happen, something is bound to be missed. it happens on our simple payloads, i can not even imagine the complexity of a real AMSAT type of bird!
Joe WB9SBD
Robert McGwier wrote:
Yet again, a statement based on no knowledge of the real situation. MOST space failures are caused by exactly this kind of thing. A wrench left behind and falling and puncturing a tank. Incomplete testing of this or that and a SUPPOSITION that it was "Okay". Satellites not bolted down when everyone assumed it was and a $100,000,000 satellite falls to the floor. These space things are extremely complex and if every system had to be tested to perfection, none could afford them. The goal of a good trained space/spacecraft engineer is to design robust systems that have the really supercritical things testable and the rest, well, the rules for that are in the adjoining testing manual (the local religious book, for prayer).
Bob
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
73, Ed - KL7UW ====================================== BP40IQ 50-MHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com 144-EME: FT-847, mgf-1801, 4x-xpol-20, 185w DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa@hotmail.com ======================================
That's why documentation is so important. We have a saying in the launch biz....It's not ready to launch until the stack of paperwork is AT LEAST as tall as the launch vehicle. ONE procedure I run for setting up the Command and Telemetry links is OVER 200 pages, and I have several procedures to run before and during the countdown and liftoff. And I'm just one guy in one of the smaller groups here! 73, Jim KQ6EA
--- sco@sco-inc.com wrote:
The failure of AO-40 was not a problem of "rocket science". It was caused by human stupidity ... not writing down what had to be removed before flight so if the only person who knew that info could not be available their backup would.
Les
At 12:25 PM 12/13/2007, you wrote:
Les,
Yes, they are aware of the fate of AO-40. They have
had their own problems
over the years and they understand that this is
rocket science.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: sco@sco-inc.com [mailto:sco@sco-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:15 PM To: Rick Hambly (W2GPS) Cc: amsat-BB Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
after AO-40 blew I would find it hard to believe
that they would
trust the success of their mission with another
AO40 type sat
onboard. Are they aware of our past track record?
Good if they let us.
Les
At 10:08 AM 12/13/2007, you wrote:
Les,
Intelsat has already told me that it is OK to
attach a satellite with
motor,
tank and fuel. In fact, they offered to fuel our
satellite with the excess
fuel from filling their own tanks.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org
[mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On
Behalf Of sco@sco-inc.com Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:28 AM To: Andrew Glasbrenner Cc: amsat-BB Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
I doubt that would ever happen. If I was the CEO
of the launch sat i
would never let an "amateur" rocket motor hitch a
ride on my multi
million dollar bird. Just like NASA won't let us
do it.
If you can think of a way for us to get from GTO
without a motor and
fuel then it might happen.
Les W4SCO www.scoincsoftware.com
At 10:08 PM 12/12/2007, you wrote:
One of the possibilities I have not seen
relayed well from the meetings
to
general knowledge is that it may be possible
for Intelsat to attach Eagle
to
one of their satellites, and drop us off in GTO
on their way to GEO. This
possibility alone is worth working this
opportunity out to it's
conclusion.
It has become very apparent to me that we will
not fund a HEO solely on
our
current membership donations. Ever. We have to
go for the outside funding
Tom mentioned, and the best way to do that is a
simple, tool-like
application like a GEO, geared heavily towards
EMCOMM. Too many of us
have
taken the wait and see approach when it comes
to supporting a HEO
project.
The money has to come first, then the satellite
gets built and launched,
not
the other way around.
73, Drew KO4MA
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed
are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the
amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings:
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Les,
Not stupidity, because I saw NASA commit the same kind of errors (km vs miles?). Every spacecraft command signal at Goldstone was confirmed by a second person (or more) before transmission. Why? because people make mistakes.
It is a failure in procedures. Any critical operation should not rely on a single person or action. Every step should have oversight. Of course, Monday morning quarterbacks can always see clearly. Not having been there and not knowing the preparations or planning effort - I only speculate. Its spilled milk - let it go.
Learning from error, that is what is needed. Performing exhaustive project reviews. This is something my current employer does a lot of. We debrief everything (and everyone) to death. I think we get better at what we do in the process.
Experience and Expertise come at the expense of failure.
BTW I troubleshoot and repair things for a living (wrote failure analysis trees on the F-14). Final analysis - never assume - check again.
73 Ed - KL7UW
At 10:53 AM 12/13/2007, sco@sco-inc.com wrote:
The failure of AO-40 was not a problem of "rocket science". It was caused by human stupidity ... not writing down what had to be removed before flight so if the only person who knew that info could not be available their backup would.
Les
At 12:25 PM 12/13/2007, you wrote:
Les,
Yes, they are aware of the fate of AO-40. They have had their own problems over the years and they understand that this is rocket science.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: sco@sco-inc.com [mailto:sco@sco-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:15 PM To: Rick Hambly (W2GPS) Cc: amsat-BB Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
after AO-40 blew I would find it hard to believe that they would trust the success of their mission with another AO40 type sat onboard. Are they aware of our past track record?
Good if they let us.
Les
At 10:08 AM 12/13/2007, you wrote:
Les,
Intelsat has already told me that it is OK to attach a satellite with
motor,
tank and fuel. In fact, they offered to fuel our satellite with the excess fuel from filling their own tanks.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of sco@sco-inc.com Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:28 AM To: Andrew Glasbrenner Cc: amsat-BB Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
I doubt that would ever happen. If I was the CEO of the launch sat i would never let an "amateur" rocket motor hitch a ride on my multi million dollar bird. Just like NASA won't let us do it.
If you can think of a way for us to get from GTO without a motor and fuel then it might happen.
Les W4SCO www.scoincsoftware.com
At 10:08 PM 12/12/2007, you wrote:
One of the possibilities I have not seen relayed well from the meetings
to
general knowledge is that it may be possible for Intelsat to
attach Eagle
to
one of their satellites, and drop us off in GTO on their way
to GEO. This
possibility alone is worth working this opportunity out to it's
conclusion.
It has become very apparent to me that we will not fund a HEO solely on
our
current membership donations. Ever. We have to go for the
outside funding
Tom mentioned, and the best way to do that is a simple, tool-like application like a GEO, geared heavily towards EMCOMM. Too many of us
have
taken the wait and see approach when it comes to supporting a HEO
project.
The money has to come first, then the satellite gets built and launched,
not
the other way around.
73, Drew KO4MA
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
It was not the fault of "proceedures". It was the fault of the humans in the chain of command who were responsible for the launch. Either someone did not follow the checklist proceedure for preparation prior to launch or a person or persons failed to develop that checklist and require and supervise its (checklist) use. People make mistakes thats why you have checklists, especially with critical tasks, ask any pilot. Having a critical task of removing something prior to launch so the motor does not destroy the spacecraft (after it is fired) is more than a little mistake. So you are saying that the hams who launched earlier sats did not have checklists? Who in their right mind attempts to launch a multi million dollar satellite without having a checklists of proceedures? I guess thats why they must calls us "amateurs"?
And organizations like Amsat-NA and Amsat-DL wants us (hams) to freely give our money to launch future sats when this is the reason given for a disaster? And ask us to hope and believe that next time will be better.
Les W4SCO
At 12:15 AM 12/14/2007, you wrote:
Les,
Not stupidity, because I saw NASA commit the same kind of errors (km vs miles?). Every spacecraft command signal at Goldstone was confirmed by a second person (or more) before transmission. Why? because people make mistakes.
It is a failure in procedures. Any critical operation should not rely on a single person or action. Every step should have oversight. Of course, Monday morning quarterbacks can always see clearly. Not having been there and not knowing the preparations or planning effort - I only speculate. Its spilled milk - let it go.
Learning from error, that is what is needed. Performing exhaustive project reviews. This is something my current employer does a lot of. We debrief everything (and everyone) to death. I think we get better at what we do in the process.
Experience and Expertise come at the expense of failure.
BTW I troubleshoot and repair things for a living (wrote failure analysis trees on the F-14). Final analysis - never assume - check again.
73 Ed - KL7UW
At 10:53 AM 12/13/2007, sco@sco-inc.com wrote:
The failure of AO-40 was not a problem of "rocket science". It was caused by human stupidity ... not writing down what had to be removed before flight so if the only person who knew that info could not be available their backup would.
Les
At 12:25 PM 12/13/2007, you wrote:
Les,
Yes, they are aware of the fate of AO-40. They have had their own problems over the years and they understand that this is rocket science.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: sco@sco-inc.com [mailto:sco@sco-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:15 PM To: Rick Hambly (W2GPS) Cc: amsat-BB Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
after AO-40 blew I would find it hard to believe that they would trust the success of their mission with another AO40 type sat onboard. Are they aware of our past track record?
Good if they let us.
Les
At 10:08 AM 12/13/2007, you wrote:
Les,
Intelsat has already told me that it is OK to attach a satellite with
motor,
tank and fuel. In fact, they offered to fuel our satellite with
the excess
fuel from filling their own tanks.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of sco@sco-inc.com Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:28 AM To: Andrew Glasbrenner Cc: amsat-BB Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
I doubt that would ever happen. If I was the CEO of the launch sat i would never let an "amateur" rocket motor hitch a ride on my multi million dollar bird. Just like NASA won't let us do it.
If you can think of a way for us to get from GTO without a motor and fuel then it might happen.
Les W4SCO www.scoincsoftware.com
At 10:08 PM 12/12/2007, you wrote:
One of the possibilities I have not seen relayed well from the meetings
to
general knowledge is that it may be possible for Intelsat to
attach Eagle
to
one of their satellites, and drop us off in GTO on their way
to GEO. This
possibility alone is worth working this opportunity out to it's
conclusion.
It has become very apparent to me that we will not fund a HEO solely on
our
current membership donations. Ever. We have to go for the
outside funding
Tom mentioned, and the best way to do that is a simple, tool-like application like a GEO, geared heavily towards EMCOMM. Too many of us
have
taken the wait and see approach when it comes to supporting a HEO
project.
The money has to come first, then the satellite gets built
and launched,
not
the other way around.
73, Drew KO4MA
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur
satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 12:15 -0500, sco@sco-inc.com wrote:
after AO-40 blew I would find it hard to believe that they would trust the success of their mission with another AO40 type sat onboard. Are they aware of our past track record?
From what I remember, the AO-40 launch and initial deployment was almost
perfect. It was some time after initial deploymment that AO-40 went wrong. I still have the launch on Video and will check if you want.
John
sco@sco-inc.com wrote:
I doubt that would ever happen. If I was the CEO of the launch sat i would never let an "amateur" rocket motor hitch a ride on my multi million dollar bird. Just like NASA won't let us do it.
If you can think of a way for us to get from GTO without a motor and fuel then it might happen.
Les W4SCO www.scoincsoftware.com
That is exactly what I thought until Intelsat told us not only would they like to entertain this notion but that they would FUEL THE SATELLITE AT THEIR EXPENSE since they have enough left over, using the same fuels we do, that they could fill us with the spillage.
This option to ride to space is still ridiculously expensive. The reason it is ridiculously expensive is not because ultimately it will cost more than the Phase 4 lite possibility. It will not cost more. I do not know how many times I have to say it, but I will make it my personal cross to bear to repeat it ad infinitum. NO ONE WILL FUND YOUR POP OFF SATELLITE TOY. You and I and everyone else knows that these things are entirely too complex and worthy of awe to be a toy. But that is how any funding source will look at it. To get the satellite into orbit will cost more than AO-10, AO13, AO16-WO18 and AO-40 COMBINED. We cannot raise money from people like you. You either a) don't have it, b) are no interested, or c) don't trust us with it. Irrespective of the causes, am telling you the facts as I see them as any reponsible and responsive manager would. If you don't like the message, elect a new director (I am up for re-election) and have the BOD fire me as an executive. I am saying fund sources are not interested in funding your communications private repeater.
The thing the P4 Lite mission has going for it is that it DELIVERS A SERVICE IN A MEANINGFUL WAY (irrespective of the shouted nonsense to the contrary we have seen here). We have spectrum that no one can tell us what to do with so long as we are obeying the law. We do all of our NRE for "nothing". We are willing to be open source, open specification, and the most important thing of all to (say) DHS, we are talking about doing it with reconfigurable software radio equipment and to work hard on the hard parts of providing interoperability. What we don't get right to begin with, with their support, we will get right and do it at a huge reduction in cost over ALL OTHER PROPOSALS.
Think people. It is not that painful a thing to do. I have been getting headaches from straining to think for decades. Most of you can do it if you would only try and close your mouths and typewriters long enough to do it.
73's Bob
. Irrespective of the causes, am telling you the facts as I see them as any reponsible and responsive manager would. If you don't like the message, elect a new director (I am up for re-election) and have the BOD fire me as an executive. I am saying fund sources are not interested in funding your communications private repeater.
God forbid that would ever happen, Robert, you are one of the few stable thinkers we have left at the helm.....
Most of you can do it if you would only try and close your mouths and typewriters long enough to do it.
It would be better if we were all back to typewriters, (the good old days). When satellite information was obtained on the low bands, with help from QST at the time...Very few "wasted" words flying around!!
73, Dave, WB6LLO dguimon1@san.rr.com
Disagree: I learn....
Pulling for P3E...
so it is not a free ride to space? where does the $6,000,000 dollars come from then?
At 02:20 PM 12/13/2007, you wrote:
sco@sco-inc.com wrote:
I doubt that would ever happen. If I was the CEO of the launch sat i would never let an "amateur" rocket motor hitch a ride on my multi million dollar bird. Just like NASA won't let us do it.
If you can think of a way for us to get from GTO without a motor and fuel then it might happen.
Les W4SCO www.scoincsoftware.com
That is exactly what I thought until Intelsat told us not only would they like to entertain this notion but that they would FUEL THE SATELLITE AT THEIR EXPENSE since they have enough left over, using the same fuels we do, that they could fill us with the spillage.
This option to ride to space is still ridiculously expensive. The reason it is ridiculously expensive is not because ultimately it will cost more than the Phase 4 lite possibility. It will not cost more. I do not know how many times I have to say it, but I will make it my personal cross to bear to repeat it ad infinitum. NO ONE WILL FUND YOUR POP OFF SATELLITE TOY. You and I and everyone else knows that these things are entirely too complex and worthy of awe to be a toy. But that is how any funding source will look at it. To get the satellite into orbit will cost more than AO-10, AO13, AO16-WO18 and AO-40 COMBINED. We cannot raise money from people like you. You either a) don't have it, b) are no interested, or c) don't trust us with it. Irrespective of the causes, am telling you the facts as I see them as any reponsible and responsive manager would. If you don't like the message, elect a new director (I am up for re-election) and have the BOD fire me as an executive. I am saying fund sources are not interested in funding your communications private repeater.
The thing the P4 Lite mission has going for it is that it DELIVERS A SERVICE IN A MEANINGFUL WAY (irrespective of the shouted nonsense to the contrary we have seen here). We have spectrum that no one can tell us what to do with so long as we are obeying the law. We do all of our NRE for "nothing". We are willing to be open source, open specification, and the most important thing of all to (say) DHS, we are talking about doing it with reconfigurable software radio equipment and to work hard on the hard parts of providing interoperability. What we don't get right to begin with, with their support, we will get right and do it at a huge reduction in cost over ALL OTHER PROPOSALS.
Think people. It is not that painful a thing to do. I have been getting headaches from straining to think for decades. Most of you can do it if you would only try and close your mouths and typewriters long enough to do it.
73's Bob
-- AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair "An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?" Descartes
It is free to AMSAT-NA. I never said it was free so far as Intelsat is concerned. The funding sources are awaiting Intelsat to give us the bottom line and for us to make a formal request. They do not do hypothetical funding statements.
Bob
sco@sco-inc.com wrote:
so it is not a free ride to space? where does the $6,000,000 dollars come from then?
At 02:20 PM 12/13/2007, you wrote:
sco@sco-inc.com wrote:
I doubt that would ever happen. If I was the CEO of the launch sat i would never let an "amateur" rocket motor hitch a ride on my multi million dollar bird. Just like NASA won't let us do it.
If you can think of a way for us to get from GTO without a motor and fuel then it might happen.
Les W4SCO www.scoincsoftware.com
Where would this GEO be positioned? Even rough information would be interesting.
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert McGwier" rwmcgwier@gmail.com
It is free to AMSAT-NA. I never said it was free so far as Intelsat is concerned.
We do not know the answer yet. Our request is for multiple payloads, covering with subsat over Atlantic, Pacific, and Central U.S. We would need one over the Indian Ocean to cover the 2 pi radians of the equator with antenna pattern. The north and south pole would be left out so I am sure the emperor penguins and polar bears would be upset!
Bob
Simon Brown wrote:
Where would this GEO be positioned? Even rough information would be interesting.
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert McGwier" rwmcgwier@gmail.com
It is free to AMSAT-NA. I never said it was free so far as Intelsat is concerned.
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Thanks - good luck with this project. Although I would prefer a HEO any GEO like this would be a bonus, especially if it works on 23 cms or higher.
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert McGwier" rwmcgwier@gmail.com
We do not know the answer yet. Our request is for multiple payloads, covering with subsat over Atlantic, Pacific, and Central U.S. We would need one over the Indian Ocean to cover the 2 pi radians of the equator with antenna pattern. The north and south pole would be left out so I am sure the emperor penguins and polar bears would be upset!
He calls himself a manager and an executive. Look at how he is addressing people here.
Desperate guy.
Think people. It is not that painful a thing to do. I have been getting headaches from straining to think for decades. Most of you can do it if you would only try and close your mouths and typewriters long enough to do it.
73's Bob
He calls himself a manager and an executive. Look at how he is addressing people here.
And exactly what some of them diserve in many cases...
Think people. It is not that painful a thing to do. I have
been
getting headaches from straining to think for decades.
Most of you
can do it if you would only try and close your mouths and
typewriters
long enough to do it.
73's Bob
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings:
At 05:53 PM 12/13/2007, MKM wrote:
He calls himself a manager and an executive. Look at how he is addressing people here.
Desperate guy.
TROLL
Why is Amsat-NA trying to build a HEO (Eagle) and a GEO (P4) and have done a LEO (AO-51) in the past few years after AO-40? Four (4) totally different designs and missions within the past 10 years!! and look where we are. all we have to show for it is a single channel FM LEO satellite in orbit as of today. India did Hamsat and we did Echo. Do we want to be on the same level as India or do we (Amsat-NA) want to be a major player in the ham satellite field?
With the huge cost to build and launch a satellite why are hams not better organized around the world? If the germans (Amsat-DL) finally get their P3E HEO satellite in orbit and working I hope they start building and funding P3E #2. Then P3E #3. If we get P4 built and launched as an EMCOMM sat (GEO) I hope we start building P4 #2 then P4 #3, etc. Let the universities and smaller countries build and launch the LEOs. Specialization is the key to our future. LEOs from university projects, HEOs from Amsat-DL and GEOs from Amsat-NA. Nothing says that we can't help each other with people (ideas) and funding. Amsat-NA has not built and launched a good HEO since when? Why should I give money to Amsat-NA to build a HEO with the record of the organization? Especially if Amsat-DL can deliver a good working HEO satellite? I will give my support for building future HEOs to the organization that can DELIVER (Amsat-DL?). Is the main problem standing in our way the egos of those in Amsat-NA?
Get a spaceframe design that works and keep it for at least 10 years. Only change the design if the previous one fails. What would happen if GM wanted to build a new car design every year? They can't afford to do that or are they able to engineer that. Why do we as hams think that we can change our design with every new satellite? It is a waste of time and resources. If General Motors can't do it why do we have the ego to think that we can?
Les W4SCO
At 10:08 PM 12/12/2007, you wrote:
One of the possibilities I have not seen relayed well from the meetings to general knowledge is that it may be possible for Intelsat to attach Eagle to one of their satellites, and drop us off in GTO on their way to GEO. This possibility alone is worth working this opportunity out to it's conclusion.
It has become very apparent to me that we will not fund a HEO solely on our current membership donations. Ever. We have to go for the outside funding Tom mentioned, and the best way to do that is a simple, tool-like application like a GEO, geared heavily towards EMCOMM. Too many of us have taken the wait and see approach when it comes to supporting a HEO project. The money has to come first, then the satellite gets built and launched, not the other way around.
73, Drew KO4MA
Hi Drew.
That's a scenario I didn't anticipate.? It offers the possibility?of negotiating with someone other than the launch provider, which has to be good. I had thought this would not be possible as the mass of eagle would have significantly shifted the center of mass of the Intelsat/Eagle combination when Eagle was detached. But I live and learn
Thanks for the info.
David? G0MRF
One of the possibilities I have not seen relayed well from the meetings to general knowledge is that it may be possible for Intelsat to attach Eagle to one of their satellites, and drop us off in GTO on their way to GEO. This possibility alone is worth working this opportunity out to it's conclusion.
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Glasbrenner glasbrenner@mindspring.com To: Tom Clark, K3IO k3io@verizon.net; AMSAT BB amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 3:08 Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
One of the possibilities I have not seen relayed well from the meetings to general knowledge is that it may be possible for Intelsat to attach Eagle to one of their satellites, and drop us off in GTO on their way to GEO. This possibility alone is worth working this opportunity out to it's conclusion.
It has become very apparent to me that we will not fund a HEO solely on our current membership donations. Ever. We have to go for the outside funding Tom mentioned, and the best way to do that is a simple, tool-like application like a GEO, geared heavily towards EMCOMM. Too many of us have taken the wait and see approach when it comes to supporting a HEO project. The money has to come first, then the satellite gets built and launched, not the other way around.
73, Drew KO4MA
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
________________________________________________________________________ AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now.
Drew,
You are quite correct on both counts. Intelsat can drop Eagle or P3E off in a GTO orbit but they will want $6M+ for the service, just like any other launch opportunity.
The Rideshare, where we stay permanently attached to an Intelsat satellite, is basically a subset of Eagle and so is not a diversion of our energy or resources. It may have all the features of Eagle or some subset depending on what we can pay for, having to do mostly with the size and placement of our NADR pointing surface (antenna farm). Intelsat has indicated that the Eagle payloads are OK with them.
So the mission (P3, P4 or whatever) is determined by the willingness of funding sources to pay for our launch and mission. The realization that we are more likely to get funding for a P4 mission over a P3 mission is what this is all about. Not politics or anything else that AMSAT leadership has been accused of in the past few days.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Glasbrenner Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:08 PM To: Tom Clark, K3IO; AMSAT BB Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
One of the possibilities I have not seen relayed well from the meetings to general knowledge is that it may be possible for Intelsat to attach Eagle to
one of their satellites, and drop us off in GTO on their way to GEO. This possibility alone is worth working this opportunity out to it's conclusion.
It has become very apparent to me that we will not fund a HEO solely on our current membership donations. Ever. We have to go for the outside funding Tom mentioned, and the best way to do that is a simple, tool-like application like a GEO, geared heavily towards EMCOMM. Too many of us have taken the wait and see approach when it comes to supporting a HEO project. The money has to come first, then the satellite gets built and launched, not
the other way around.
73, Drew KO4MA
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
participants (17)
-
Andrew Glasbrenner -
Dave Guimont -
David B. Toth -
Edward Cole -
g0mrf＠aol.com -
Jim Jerzycke -
Joe -
John Heaton -
MKM -
Ollie Eisman -
Rick Hambly (W2GPS) -
Rick Meuse -
Robert Bruninga -
Robert McGwier -
sco＠sco-inc.com -
Simon Brown -
Tom Clark, K3IO