Hi, > Since you brought up "politics"...all I know is that trying the same thing > over and over usually ensures getting the same results. I dont think we are > going to see an AO-10,13 or 40 again because of the propulsion issue. I > doubt any group is going to let a pyalod on with a motor unless there are > "real rocket scientist" doing the job...the record has not been all that > sterling.
Just for clarification: AMSAT P3-A on Ariane-1 L02 together with Firewheel. AMSAT P3-B / AO-10 on Ariane-1 L06 with ECS-1 first European Communication Satellite. AMSAT P3-C / AO-13 on Ariane-401 with Panamsat-1 and METEOSAT-P2. AMSAT P3-D / AO-40 on Ariane-507 with Panamsat PAS-1R and STRV-1C, STRV-1D for DERA. AMSAT was also flying explosive Bolt-cutters for the clamp-bands on these missions. For one of the earlier launchers AMSAT-DL designed and build Separation-Sequencers for the non-AMSAT payload/adapters as part of some "launch compensation". The SBS on P3-D was provided by AMSAT and it was carrying the heaviest primary payload on Ariane-5 at that time. Was this "too risky" for the paying primary payload? No, because we delivered and went through all required quality gates.. The propulsion system always had to go through several Safety Submissions Phases in which we had to certify and demonstrate that the launch configuration of critical software and hardware commands is in conformity with the CSG safety regulations and has been tested as an effective inhibit to all the potential hazardous commands (means also propulsion). The command inhibit circuits (hardware and software) dedicated to hazardous systems have been tested and validated and they are working properly. A system check was successfully performed at CSG (Center Spatial Guyanaise) facilities before loading with fuel. There were 7 Levels of Safety Barriers (hardware and software) to ensure this !!! So don't even think or believe that any P3-Satellite would have ever been launched without them (the launch provider) knowing what we were doing! Neither CSG (also responsible for the safety of the people at the launch center), or ESA or Arianespace or any of the other Payloads and Customers would do that.. We have been already discussing P3-E in details and there was no doubt about it concerning all pre- and post-launch operations, even after the fate of AO-40!! What happened to AO-40 later are two completely different shoes.. And even this was discussed with them in lengthy and they were not concerned... Shit happens.. We were told to be still satisfied since our bird was alive for more than 4 years (!) compared to other commercial satellites they have been launching and which failed only days later for even more stupid reasons.. So let's stop this kind of destructive assumptions making and conclusion making, if you don't know what you are talking about.. *** The Launch is the problem... not the propulsion !! *** If we bring enough money, they will for sure take P3-E into orbit as soon as possible.. The rough number of 10 Million Euro is indeed the commercial value, nothing we paid in the past or will be in the future.. We always have to look for "compensation"... So, we will continue to fight for it and to find ways to launch P3-E. 73s Peter DB2OS There is a saying: Where there's a will, there's a way. A firm belief in the feasibility of a case involving the feasibility of an idea is the basis of all creative thought and action.... If you don't even try and keep your goals low, you will never get beyond earth surface... _______________________________________________ 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
