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_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1 _______________________________________________ Sent via amsat...@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
