On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Rocky Jones <orbit...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Finally, a truism that probably bears repeating, though not addressing >> the two comments quoted above: if we call cubesats 'not amateur >> radio', then we should tar OSCAR 1 with that same brush. >> >> 73, Bruce >> VE9QRP >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > Bruce...that is really not fair.
I'm sorry if I'm not being fair. I rather think, though, that there is an important difference of opinion here on what constitutes amateur activity. I'd like to explore it further with your permission. > Oscar 1 (and 2) were "first time" for a lot of things and had at their heart > the goal of building amateur radio communications platforms...that is why > Oscar "X" (I think that is what they call it...a repeat of Oscar 1 and 2) > was shelved in favor of Oscar III a communications platform. If you are advocating a litmus test for amateur activity, especially in the satellite field, that is based on novelty, then I cannot see how you are not equally opposed to those aspects of P3E that are self-consciously emulating previous satellites (everything other than SDX and CAN-DO?) In fact, in common practice innovation is too high a bar to set for amateur activity: we don't expect each ham to invent a new modulation scheme before getting on a local repeater for the first time; and I know that when and if a HEO satellite is in orbit again, you will not deprecate my enjoyment of following in the footsteps of many before me who have undertaken linear transponder communications on that platform. I will meet you half way and say that innovation is a hallmark of amateur satellite operations, though not a requirement. This is why I am very excited by upcoming tests of SDX. It is also, incidentally, why I applaud the achievements of the cubesat groups, whose very form-factor is innovative, and who undertake innovative applications, such as spacecraft stabilization for potential experiments in formation flying, high-quality image capture, new communication modes, physics experiments, etc., a list that reads much like the one you apply to Oscar V below: > Both Oscar 1 and II lasted until their batteries ran out...indeed I think > Number 1 lasted until it decayed..Oscar V tested communications technology > from spacecraft stabilization to command systems etc. and it lasted until > its batteries ran out I can't tell here: are you suggesting that battery-operated satellites are more in the amateur spirit? Doesn't this contravene your innovation criterion? Were not batteries in Oscar 1-5 faute de mieux? You seem to be implying that the Oscar 1 designers eschewed the solar panels available to them and wisely chose the limited lifetime option. My understanding of the history of technology is somewhat hazy, but as it is, it doesn't fit this picture. > .that is far longer sat life then most of the cubesats have. which mostly > have nothing to do with amateur radio In your opinion, is short life a knock against cubesats? Maybe it's a good idea to have shorter missions in some cases. Short life is not always true, of course: CO-57, e.g., has been in operation for over six years. 73, Bruce VE9QRP _______________________________________________ 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
