Zach,
Good question. Part of the answer depends on your definitions of working
properly, and quickly.
HO-68 and SO-67 have gone away quickly, that is within about a year of
launch. By comparison, AO-51 was launched in 2004, with many years of
service. AO-7 was dead for a couple of decades
I don't think there is much difference when you look at ALL the failed and
operational sats. BTW, FO-29 is inoperative, HO-68 was both FM and linear, and
you forgot DO-64 in recently failed transponders. AO-27 is 17? years old.
Satellites come and go. I still miss SO-35, RS-10/11, RS-12/13,
- Original Message -
From: zach hillerson qstick...@yahoo.com
To: amsat-bb@amsat.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:48 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] satellite durability fm vs. linears
Serious question regarding satellite durability. It seems with HO68, SO67,
and now AO51, the FM satellites
The thing I've been wondering (and this is in no way accusatory, just a
question out of curiosity) is why we didn't build the IHU's with NVRAM and
a circuit to cut the batteries completely out of the loop. Since the cell
failure seems inevitable, it would only make sense to design the satellites
Would now be a good time to mention that Fox-1 is designed to operate
while illuminated, even after a battery failure?
73,
Jerry
N0JY
On 11/29/2011 5:36 PM, Andrew Koenig wrote:
The thing I've been wondering (and this is in no way accusatory, just a
question out of curiosity) is why we didn't
