[amsat-bb] Re: Ride to space
rwmcgwier at gmail.com
Mon Oct 29 15:38:55 PST 2007
Several months ago we were made aware of a shift in policy in the United
States government that now has potential to have a lot of impact.
Almost no one knew of it but Rick and I went to the Pentagon and went
pretty deep inside and talked to people who knew this policy was about
to be pushed out the door. The U.S. government is a large subsidizer of
the launcher business in the US since it uses a lot of them. The DoD
grew tired of having lots and lots of excess capacity on board vehicles
they paid for but unused when a bit of fuel could allow them to carry
extra payloads. They started making loud noises about making it have
the force of law or regulation that these things had to have secondary
payloads on them for U.S. paid for launches. The commercial satellite
vendors rapidly stepped in to fill this with ways for them to get paid
In addition to this, if we consume solar energy efficiently and radiate
it RF, we are a help to them and the amount of energy becomes
significant over 15 years!
As always, we will have to argue a business case for ourselves that
includes more than just paying a big fee, but you can begin to take
direction on your thinking from my comments. There are others doing
this as well.
Tony Langdon wrote:
> At 05:26 AM 10/30/2007, Robert McGwier wrote:
> First, I have to say this is fantastic!
>> Intelsat offers both! We are asking for Piggy back for us and will ask
>> for secondary payload should it be required for P3E.
> I'm curious why they're going for it. What's in it for Intelsat? Not
> being picky, just curious how it looks from their perspective.
>> We just have to face some very very hard realities. There has not been
>> a high earth orbit bird from us for years because of the lack of
>> launches available to us. We have to be creative to get them launched.
>> We are attempting to do exactly that. In our case, what makes us
>> attractive to funding is piggyback.
> A fantastic effort from all involved no doubt. I'm certainly looking
> forward to these sats seeing the light of day. And as for linking, I
> agree that Earth -> Sat -> Earth -> Sat -> Earth (as opposed to Earth ->
> Sat -> Sat -> Earth) is going to be easier to manage in the longer run.
> keep the complicated bits on the ground where they can be serviced. :)
> Also means we don't need another set of antennas pointing out into space.
> 73 de VK3JED
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
“An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why
must the pessimist always run to blow it out?” Descartes
More information about the AMSAT-BB