[amsat-bb] Why do hamsats?
Bruce. I changed the title. I didnt like Frank doing what he did in public and as far as I am concern the exchange is over. I got three points from you're piece...and they are good ones. First..the educational benefits of suitsat 1 and 2. I have no doubt thanks to folks like you (and others) there was educational value (and perhaps inspirational value) from the suitsat experience. No doubt. The other day when LCROSS was suppose to do the plume thing we had about 15 kids over (early in the morning) to watch it through the 12 and 4.5 inch tube. Santa Fe TX is a semi rural area with large farms...and the kids are use to getting up early, but a bunch of neighborhood kids came over with the invite of the 10 year olds...and we had eggs for breakfast and models and some computer tracking programs running...and even though there was nothing to be seen (turns out by almost anything!) there was a great deal of fun, some good education opportunity and all that. Problem is that the big question (the 80 million dollar question) still remains...1) did the mission do what it was suppose to do and 2) was it the best use of 80 million dollars to answer that question (as well as the unique opportunity the launch provided). Those are answers that do not get ameliorated by the educational value of what occurred. Education is a good thing, but but unless it is the primary goal of whatever was being done then the primary thing has to have value commensurate with cost all on its own. Ham radio is about communicating. If we want to turn its primary task into education then it will look very very different. Second the odds of success. I had let the topic drop until it was brought up by someone else. It is to me depressing. AMSAT NA in particular seems to be (at least in my view) on a high technology kamikaze mission. The reason Oscars I through 13 were quite successful is that they each (might have had problems) built on the success and knowledge of the last one.They were robust, single focused (ie they were transponders and limited at that). Todays efforts are one gadget after another in my view. Hence the sat population is decreasing. Suitsat 1 failed technologically (grin) even though it was a very simple satellite. Prudent engineering doctrine would say try it or something slightly more complicated again and get it correct before moving on to something vastly more complicated. Instead it is we cannot get people to work on it if it is not something cool. as if getting a vehicle into space that works shouldnt all on its own be something ... The folks who are in charge have chosen this path...see how it works. Third...I have no problem with them taking the opportunity Many years ago we brought the airplane that is today the preeminent two engine heavy into the old Denver Stapleton airport so the launch customer could show it off. (it was pretty cool actually, even though the concrete could handle the light weight of the big twin, the asphalt covering couldnt and boards had to be put down to keep the trucks from sinking). The launch customer (UAL) brought out a Boeing 247 for comparison. One of the first things that they did was open the airplane(s) up for school kids. They had pilots and flight attendants in current and period outfits...the educational value was pretty splendid. But it meant nothing if the Big Twin couldnt keep the wings on it (the problem with its sister) Robert WB5MZO PS...as for being sarcastic...I confess the end got the better of me. it detracted from my point! _ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/ ___ 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
[amsat-bb] Why do hamsats? (Or anything else...)
I'll limit my comments to two issues: Ham radio is about communicating. If we want to turn its primary task into education then it will look very very different. Part 97.1 tells us what the intended (not always realized, it must be said) purpose of amateur radio is. it certainly is intended to be a communication service, but the regulations also recognize the importance of education in Part 97.1(c): (c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art. Education (particularly self-education) has always been a principle of amateur radio.Indeed, from 97.3(a)(4), the definition of amateur service: (4) Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest. It does list intercommunication, but it also lists self-training and technical investigations, which certainly have a clear educational mandate. I admit that most hams don't seem to take this educational mandate very seriously, but it is there, and I applaud AMSAT in their educational efforts. In the grand scheme of things, I think having school kids talk to astronauts in orbit probably does more social good than allowing hams work DX. Secondly, regarding the chances of success of ARISS-Sat-1, first, I hope you are wrong. I hope it is successful, and that the SDX transponder provides some unique opportunities for radio amateurs. As to whether flying such a payload is a reasonable use of this rare launch opportunity, I think it clearly is. Yes, we could kick a very basic linear transponder out of the ISS, and it would float around in LEO and allow you to make some contacts, but so what? What purpose would be served? To get to _affordable_ amateur satellites, we have to find a way to actually pay for launches. This means (among other things) limiting mass, and that means relying on the benefits that digital control can in controlling and minimizing power consumption. You can't just run a bent pipe transponder on a 1U cubesat and expect anything useful to develop. We need to think Robert also mentioned the decreasing satellite population. It isn't decreasing because satellites are becoming more expensive: indeed, as Bob Bruninga has pointed out, the actual hardware costs of satellites have fallen dramatically. The problem is that we can't get people to donate free launches to get our stuff into orbit.AO-10 had a mass of about 90kg.Arianspace wants 1.8 million euros to launch that into HEO orbit. The cost of the development and construction of the satellite is just the smallest fraction of that cost. To make satellite launches affordable, we need to figure out new ways to shrink the mass, provide careful power control, and either accept lower orbits or figure out new ways to boost satellites to higher orbits (I find the micropropulsion work to be very interesting). It's a pity we can't harness the power of complaining to boost things to orbit... 73 Mark K6HX ___ 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
