Short answer: Money. They are much more expensive than the little LEO's,
CubeSat's, etc.
73,
Lowell
K9LDW
-- Original Message --
Received: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 04:27:53 PM CDT
From: "ka9qjg"
To:
Subject: [amsat-bb] Geostationary Satellites
> Hello Hope Everyone is doing Well, I know peo
Don,
Cost, which is enough to drop any other issues to noise level. That is the
High Rent District, and given how much the commercial users pay, they would
not want to have an "amateur" satellite wandering around. More practically,
it would be nice to have a package on a commercial satellite. T
Just a novice guess here, but aren't the geostationary orbits MUCH
higher than our satellites run? And therefore cost a lot more to get
boosted to that orbit?
Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32
(Which has soon-to-be-released internal satellite tracking)
On 10/
A few reasons:
1. There are a finite number of orbital slots at Geostationary. That is
essentially like water front property.
2. The satellite's footprint is less than half the Earth, all the time; the
same half of the Earth all the time.
3. Those at northern latitudes will always have low
simple reason money money!! We should all pool our Visa cards and create
another AO-40 (sobsob).
73 Bob W7LRD
- Original Message -
From: "ka9qjg"
To: AMSAT-BB@amsat.org
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:23:20 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Geostationary Satellites
Hello Hope Every
Has anyone run the numbers? Are we talking 20 million, 100 million?
Let's see, there are at best 5000 satellite ops. So, if it cost $20,000,000 we
are each in it for $4000. I'm game. Now to convince 4999 of my friends. :)
Seriously, you think it gets boring talking to us same guys on AO-51 each
--
From: "Alan P. Biddle"
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 5:50 PM
To: "AMSAT-BB"
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Geostationary Satellites
Don,
Cost, which is enough to drop any other issues to noise level. That is
the
High Rent District, and given how
At 08:51 AM 10/11/2011, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) wrote:
Just a novice guess here, but aren't the geostationary orbits MUCH
higher than our satellites run? And therefore cost a lot more to
get boosted to that orbit?
Got it in one, that's the main reason we don't have any geostationary
ham sat
At 09:24 AM 10/11/2011, Bob- W7LRD wrote:
simple reason money money!! We should all
pool our Visa cards and create another AO-40 (sobsob).
Oh, if I had the money, I'd love to chip in
something for another AO-40 like bird, but not so
keen on its originally planned orbit, because
down here
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:41:05 -0400
"Tom Schaefer, NY4I" wrote:
> Seriously, you think it gets boring talking to us same guys on AO-51 each
> day? Try that for a giant repeater in space.
Talking to the same guys would be nice, but it would never happen.
OLA! OHLA! OOH-LAAA! OLA
Numbers for just the cost of an Amateur payload, or numbers for the
whole satellite?
A 'typical' satellite costs from 150 million to 300 million, depending
on what hardware it carries.
The cost of a launch to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit ranges from 95
million to 150 million depending on th
I am 300million short and have no experience raising capital, but if (and I
guess there isn't any way for hams to raise 300mil), there was, I'd
volunteer to do as much as I could ...
Maybe that means soldering boards all night, or passing out a tin cup for
donations
but I'd
On Oct 10, 2011, at 3:03 PM, Ken Ernandes wrote:
> 1. There are a finite number of orbital slots at Geostationary. That is
> essentially like water front property.
I've heard that asserted before, but I question the reasoning.
My understanding is that spacing of satellites around the geostat
What we need is Arsene or an Oscar IV in the correct orbit...Robert WB5MZO
Life member ARRL AMSAT NARS
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:40:37 -0500
> From: whit...@usa.net
> To: ka9...@wowway.com; AMSAT-BB@amsat.org
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Geostationary Satellites
>
> Short a
t for hamsats...Robert G. Oler WB5MZO ARRL AMSAT NARS life member
> From: kb...@amsat.org
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:59:43 -0700
> To: n2...@mindspring.com
> CC: AMSAT-BB@amsat.org
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Geostationary Satellites
>
> On Oct 10, 2011, at 3:03 PM, Ken Ernandes
It is true that a Geo bird would only cover 1/3 of the Earth, but it would
ALWAYS be there, with no need for antenna rotors or keps or a computer for
tracking. It would be like picking up a telephone. It would be wonderful for
emergency service in a disaster area. It could provide high speed digita
At 05:02 PM 10/11/2011, Daniel Schultz wrote:
It is true that a Geo bird would only cover 1/3 of the Earth, but it would
ALWAYS be there, with no need for antenna rotors or keps or a computer for
tracking. It would be like picking up a telephone. It would be wonderful for
emergency service in a d
You are viewing it only from the point of view of signal interference. In
reality, the greater issue is maintaining our position and the risk of
collision. There is a very tight band that defines geostationary and there are
some significant disturbing forces: Earth's triaxial gravity distribut
On Oct 11, 2011, at 3:31 AM, Ken Ernandes wrote:
> For those believing in the large space, small satellite theory, the risk of
> collision is more real than one might think.
It must be, since I would think the risk of collision is so tiny as to be
effectively negligible. If we position our satel
>> the risk of collision is more real than one might think.
> I would think the risk of collision is so tiny
> as to be effectively negligible.
I think it is, but when "negligible" incurs about a BILLION$$$ worth of
loss, it magnifies the risk.
> If we position our satellite halfway between two
Paul -
Your final suggestion is something that is workable. Placing a satellite say
200 km below GEO would result in the satellite drifting about 10 minutes per
day or about 2.5 degrees per day. This would result in a cycle that repeats
about every 144 days (or about 2.5 times per year), rela
How about a high altitude drifter above the geo belt? In fact wasn't that
talked about by a few amsat people in the early 80's. I seem to remember
hearing it discussed by the late Rip WA2LQQ on the 75 meter Amsat net back
in the day.
Dave Marthouse N2AAM
dmartho...@gmail.com
___
Question, what is the closest spacing for geo satellites to share the same
slot? Is this theoretically practical and or possible?
Dave Marthouse N2AAM
dmartho...@gmail.com
___
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
No
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:08:01 -0400
Ken Ernandes wrote:
> I hope this is somehow helpful in understanding what AMSAT would really be up
> against if it wanted to have an independent GEO satellite or consider a
> sub-GEO drifting orbit.
Thank you Ken, for the rocket scientist's take on it ;-)
How hard (Energy) budget is it to have that giant elliptical orbit, I
can't remember what bird had it, but it was an orbit named like moylina
or something like that where the perigee was very low but the apogee
was like WAY out there giving passes that were extremely long.
Joe WB9SBD
The O
--- On Tue, 11/10/11, Joe wrote:
> How hard (Energy) budget is it to have that giant elliptical orbit,
> I can't remember what bird had it, but it was an orbit named like
> moylina or something like that where the perigee was very low
> but the apogee was like WAY out there giving passes that
What you're describing is the AMSAT Phase 3 paradigm which IMHO is still the
most viable way to go.
I would never say never, but we (AMSAT) haven't had great success with
propulsion systems in our amateur satellites. That is why I'd like to have
more experience with successful propulsion eve
> Question, what is the closest spacing for geo
> satellites to share the same slot?
> Is this theoretically practical and or possible?
I think someone already said that there are no such thing as physical slots.
Slots are FREQUENCY based. Meaning their separation only has to be as great as
cting
frequency allocations, monitoring rule proposals, Symposiums
happening and informational updates accurate.
73,
Dee, NB2F
NJ AMSAT Coordinator
-Original Message-
From: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org
[mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Daniel
Schultz
Sent: Tuesday, Octob
29 matches
Mail list logo
