> Don’t Fly Suit-Sat to the
> International Space Station
Nothing in amateur radio has ever been accomplished by the naysayers and
armchair lawyers and wannabee's and dreamers that spend their time trying to
tear down and stop what others are trying to accomplish. Amateur radio and ANY
volunt
Bob has been cogent in his examiniation of several of the original
points. I would like to chime in regarding the educational value of
the SuitSat program, which has been denegrated by its opponents.
I offered three classes in a local Middle School after SS-1 was
launched. The details were posted
> I offered three classes in a local Middle School after SS-1 was
> launched. The details were posted in this letter:
> http://128.54.16.15/amsat/archive/amsat-bb/200602/msg00877.html As I
> noted then, it was a great success: the idea of communicating with an
> object pushed out of humanity's
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:35:29PM -0500, Rocky Jones wrote:
>
> Bruce...so we are doing satellites now for their educational not
> communicative value?
Why not?
If it isn't obvious to *everyone* yet, the world of amateur satellites is
changing. It isn't like
this is the script we would hav
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Rocky Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>> I offered three classes in a local Middle School after SS-1 was
>> launched. The details were posted in this letter:
>> http://128.54.16.15/amsat/archive/amsat-bb/200602/msg00877.html As I
>> noted then, it was a great success: the idea
> Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:53:11 +
> From: k...@sdf.lonestar.org
> To: amsat-bb@amsat.org
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:35:29PM -0500, Rocky Jones wrote:
> >
> > Bruce...so we are doing s
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Rocky Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>> Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:53:11 +
>> From: k...@sdf.lonestar.org
>> To: amsat-bb@amsat.org
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
>>
>> On Fri, A
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:51:19AM -0500, Rocky Jones wrote:
>
> because if we do satellites for educational purposes then the effort is non
> sustainable.
Your logic is flawed in several places here.
First of all, you are making the same mistake as many on this BB that
whatever choices that we
The worldwide amateur radio community must interface with one unified voice to
the various space agencies that form the ISS partnership. The ARISS
organization, whatever its flaws may be, was created by the efforts of a lot
of hard working hams in many countries to provide that interface. Without i
Thanks for this Dan.
73,
Tim - N3TL
From: Daniel Schultz
To: amsat-bb@amsat.org
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 12:47:37 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
The worldwide amateur radio community must interface with one un
Great points Dan! I can think of anything I could add.
73, Ken N2WWD
-Original Message-
From: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] On Behalf
Of Daniel Schultz
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 12:48 AM
To: amsat-bb@amsat.org
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don'
>
> Dan Schultz N8FGV
>
>
based on your logic no criticism whatsoever is warranted.
As for AO-40. It failed for the same reason that suitsat 1 did, and for the
same reason that a lot of people who build their own airplane kill themselves
every year trying to "test fly it"the project g
On 22 Aug 2009 at 11:51, Rocky Jones wrote:
>
> That is what makes the decisions on AO 40 so lame. Instead of building a
> satellite which would provide Oscar 10/13 communications (with maybe
> something at 2.4 ghz which could become reliable)
they had to go build a super sat which was going
> Never forget the builders factor
>
> Each one involved in the sat making have their own ideas about what THEY
> believe the satellite should be. It has been well documented in
> the past that some says they are not interested in building something they
> already built in the past. They want
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:58:30PM -0500, Rocky Jones wrote:
>
> That is not a flaw in my argument, it was a fact. As best I understand it,
> and it has been sometime since I looked at it in any depth, the flaw in the
> AO-40 rocket motor was that a procedure was missed in preping the motor for
> ... they had to go build a super sat ...
> ... Never forget the builders factor...
> Each one involved in the sat making have
> their own ideas about what THEY believe
> the satellite should be.
And since "they" are the ones spending 12-16 hours a day for
years to BUILD it, then it is only hum
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
Bob
>
> And since "they" are the ones spending 12-16 hours a day for
> years to BUILD it, then it is only human nature that they will
> build what THEY believe in, and not what a bunch of
> keyboard-jocky shack-potato's waste everyone's time whinnning
> about...
>
OK, so they dont care about t
>> And since "they" are the ones spending
>> 12-16 hours a day for years to BUILD it,
>> then it is only human nature that they will
>> build what THEY believe in, and not what
>> a bunch of keyboard-jocky shack-potato's
>> waste everyone's time whinnning about...
>
> OK, so they dont care abou
nable as it is a UV linear transponder with the
government paying for the launch. This is what most AMSAT members want.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From: "Rocky Jones"
To: ; "Amsat BB"
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 19:30 UTC
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re:
>As for AO-40. It failed for the same reason that suitsat 1 did, and for the
>same reason that a lot of people who build their own airplane kill
themselves
>every year trying to "test fly it"the project got to big for the
>organization that was building it...ie their technical competence was
>
I believe you are right, Bob. The total number of dissenting opinions
at least on the -bb have been few. I have been silent, although tempted
to reply, but I believe you have hit the nail on the head. I believe
the "silent majority" is behind AMSAT.
Jerry
N0JY
Bob Bruninga wrote:
> The broa
There can be no arguement that you both are right, the question is, what
about those who left AMSAT or no longer pay due because they also -
silently - are voting with thier talents, skills, and money which are not
available... It is no problem to have a group which is in - at least tacit -
agr
- Original Message -
From: "Rocky Jones"
To: ; "Amsat BB"
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:38 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
As for AO-40. It failed for the same reason that suitsat 1 did, and for the
same reason that a lot of p
> I believe you are right, Bob. The total
> number of dissenting opinions at least on
> the -bb have been few. ... I believe
> the "silent majority" is behind AMSAT.
Oh, by-the-way, I have received lots of private-off-BB email
agreement. Normally I reply to each such private email, but
since
On 23 Aug 2009 at 23:17, N0JY wrote:
> I believe you are right, Bob. The total number of dissenting opinions
> at least on the -bb have been few. I have been silent, although tempted
> to reply, but I believe you have hit the nail on the head. I believe
> the "silent majority" is behind AMSA
Bob.
perhaps you have hit the problem squarely on the head.
>
> I didn't say that. Read it again. I said they will work on and build what
> they believe in.
Volunteerism is an act of service. Indeed it is the foundation of "service"
(no matter if it is the Boy Scouts/FFA or the US militar
On 24 Aug 2009 at 9:46, Robert Bruninga wrote:
> > I believe you are right, Bob. The total
> > number of dissenting opinions at least on
> > the -bb have been few. ... I believe
> > the "silent majority" is behind AMSAT.
>
> Oh, by-the-way, I have received lots of private-off-BB email
> agree
> Are you saying that the folks who build
> the satellites are
> doing it for their own self interest?
Nope, for the second time that you have now tried to twist this
into your own self serving view of selfishness, I say again,
read my words.
>> And since "they" are the ones spending
>> 12-16
Bob. I am not twisting any words
If the people believed in the amateur radio satellite service, they would build
products that serve the interest of that group.
If they build something else, they are doing it for other reasons.
Robert WB5MZO
__
-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
Rocky Jones wrote:
> As for AO-40. It failed for the same reason that suitsat 1 did, and for
the same reason that a lot of people who build their own airplane kill
themselves every year trying to "test fly it"the project
John...nice try, thats the old straw man argument
>
> And talk about having their heads inserted into their anal orifices, we
> have people saying, in essence, "you people are too stupid to make a
> complex high-earth-orbit satellite work", and at the same time, "you
> people are foolish to in
Rocky Jones wrote:
> John...nice try, thats the old straw man argument
The irony of this statement is rich.
> all the "cliches" that you quote aside I'll try one "A person has got
> to know their limitations"...and any organization that allows a
> "remove before flight" flag to stay on in fligh
Ben...
"
> "But Marge! Trying is the first step toward failure!"
your argument/position is one that NASA tots out all the time to explain why
they have lost two space shuttles "we are pushing the unknown".
Not so much.
Had Columbia been lost on its first few flights because there was somethi
34 matches
Mail list logo
