Thanks Dan very well put. Exactly what I was trying to say. John AG9D On Sep 21, 2012 11:23 AM, <pughkei...@cs.com> wrote:
> > Amen, Dan! > > Keith, W5IU > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Schultz <n8...@usa.net> > To: amsat-bb <amsat-bb@amsat.org> > Sent: Fri, Sep 21, 2012 1:05 am > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: 22% votes > > > Amsat is living in a brave new world where launches are fully > commercialized > and nobody gets a free ride anymore. We will either adapt to that paradigm > shift or we will cease to exist. > > Things were a lot different in the 1960's and 70's. In 1961 an Air Force > general had enough authority to allow Oscar 1 to be bolted to the side of > his > launch vehicle. It is like this in the early days of all new technological > ventures. The internet in the early 1990's was a lot more free-wheeling > before > the "suits" took notice of it and started to regulate it. > > In today's world the bean counters are fully in charge, and nobody rides > for > free. When you have commercial companies offering $10 million to place 100 > kg > in orbit, that becomes the market price, and the only way to lower that > price > is to expand the supply of launches. > > This development is especially ironic because Amsat created the entire > small > satellite industry. There was a time when industry and government experts > laughed at us and our little toy satellites. We proved that small > satellites > are valuable and now everybody wants to launch them. A little company > called > Surrey Satellite Technology grew out of Amsat endeavors. > > AO-40 was a once in a lifetime opportunity. ESA offered us a 600 kilogram > ride > on one of the first Ariane 5 vehicles and we voted to go for it. The > reasons > for AO-40's failure have been covered before, and further analysis will not > add to the discussion. It is not a mistake to throw deep sometimes. If > AO-40 > had worked as designed, it would have revolutionized amateur radio. We > gambled > and lost and we will most likely never see another 600 kg launch > opportunity. > > The Eagle project was started about a decade ago in hope of launching a > more > modest HEO replacement for AO-40, and to be able to do so on a regular > basis > so that a single satellite failure would not ground the entire program. > This > effort was overtaken by the tidal wave of cubesats. With every single > university on Earth launching a cubesat all of the available launch > opportunities are filled with pea-pod launchers and there is no room for > Eagle, unless someone writes a check for $10 million. > > Since cubesats are the only available launches, Amsat has started the Fox > program to participate in the cubesat trend. Amsat can help its case by > making > Fox the best engineered cubesat ever built, which should not be too hard > compared to some of the other cubesat designs that I have seen. > > The university cubesats use amateur radio frequencies as inexpensive data > downlinks, but they do not otherwise contribute to the basis and purpose of > amateur radio as defined in part 97. Education is mentioned in part 97 but > many of these cubesat programs just barely touch on the communications > aspects > of space flight. > > I also don't think that most of the student built cubesats are teaching > proper > engineering techniques, I wonder how many of them have gone through thermal > vacuum or radiation testing. Some cubesat groups are still purchasing off > the > shelf ham HTs and simply removing the plastic case before mounting it in > the > satellite, because they "don't know how to design an RF system". I doubt > that > the students are learning the engineering and career skills that they will > need to survive in the real world when they get entry level jobs at Boeing > or > Lockheed Martin after graduation. Nevertheless there is substantial > financial > support for student built satellites which are perceived to be training and > inspiring the next generation of engineers, while ham radio has a public > image > of being the last century's technology, a hobby of elderly men using Morse > code and vacuum tube radios, and nobody with money to donate cares if hams > can > use a satellite to work rare DX countries. Our link to education is likely > to > be one of our only ways to secure low cost launches in the future, so we > had > better find ways to work with and direct the student groups toward building > well engineered, long lived satellites with a real communications mission > in > mind. > > We can also look around and take notice of what other groups are doing in > space. Many different forms of electric propulsion are in development or > are > now flying, and this technology has the possibility to enable some of the > HEO > missions that we desire. What if we had been able to propel ARRISSat into a > higher orbit instead of helplessly watch it reenter a mere six months after > deployment from the ISS? What if we had been able to nudge AO-13 away from > its > destructive resonance and prevent it from reentering far too early? > > Another area where Amsat has failed has been in the news media. When Amsat > does not receive credit for its accomplishments, others are free to rewrite > history and claim that they were the first to accomplish every new thing, > sometimes claiming credit for things that Amsat first did three decades > ago. > The universities have professional public relations staff who know how to > plant favorable news stories in the media. When Amsat launched AO-40 some > of > us tried to get the mainstream news media interested in the story, but not > having professional contacts in the media, our efforts fell flat on the > floor. > The funding follows the publicity, and when Amsat misses out on the > publicity, > the money goes elsewhere. How is it that we launched AO-40 with barely a > mention in the popular press or in space industry publications? > > Those of you who are lapsed Amsat members and will not rejoin until a HEO > is > launched really should reconsider. The membership dues are not that high, > and > we still need your active participation if any of this is to come to > fruition. > Giving up on Amsat by lapsing your membership pretty well insures that we > will > never again have a HEO satellite. > > 73 > > Dan Schultz N8FGV > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
