[amsat-bb] Re: New satellies / Shuttle question

Bill Ress bill at hsmicrowave.com
Sat May 31 12:12:18 PDT 2008

Hello David,

A very sound suggestion.with which I agree 200%.

It appears that Eagle is languishing in inactivity and Intelsat needs 
multi-millions which I don't see in the coffers for some time, if ever.. 
Pardon my pessimism, but I don't see AMSAT-NA launching a satellite, 
using the current game plan, for at least 5 years, if then.

Your approach puts the "horse before the cart" so to speak and offers 
the best chance of launching an new satellite within 2 years, if that is 
what the satellite user folks want, and I sense they do.

Speaking of the (this time) "cart before the horse", AMSAT-NA has now 
starting an ACP ground station initiative without knowing what the 
satellite looks like it will have to work with.

I see your suggestion as positive and constructive and not one to be 
construed as negative and counter productive and thanks for putting it 
forward. I wonder what the rest of the reflector readers think?

Regards...Bill - N6GHz

G0MRF at aol.com wrote:
> Hi Edward / group.
> Most current construction or feasility study is centered on P3E / Eagle /  
> Intelsat /HEO where launch opportunities are rare and costs are high.
> Perhaps we should look at this problem from another viewpoint. Start with  
> what launch opportunities  AMSAT can afford and then retake the technology  
> initative and investigate what minaturised payloads can we launch for that  price?
> For example.  Imagine a 2 or 3U cubesat type structure, or  even one half the 
> size of AO-51 on last weeks Russian launch to  1500km.  With payloads reduced 
> to transponders and a basic onboard computer  and an Electrical Power System, 
> it would be feasable to put RF comms equipment  into a decent orbit on 29MHz 
> 145MHz 435MHz with an RX on 1269.
> For bands higher than 13cm doppler is a problem and path loss is  quite high. 
>  It may not be possible to provide the necessary DC power  for transmitters 
> in a small structure.
> Talking of DC power, the number of cubesats that fail due to power problems  
> is huge. The answer is to get inventive with deployable solar arrays. With  
> the engineering excellence AMSAT possesses it should not be impossible to  
> arrange a structure where the entire outer layer contains extra solar cells  that 
> are deployed after seperation from the launcher.  Imagine a  3U cube which in 
> orbit becomes a 3U box of electronics covered in cells, with an  extended outer 
> 3U shell that deploys forming a 6U structure producing  nearly double the DC 
> power. The 6U structure also makes antenna design  easier
> For a slightly more risky idea.....small satellite propulsion.  Again,  
> perhaps 3U cube, with the last section comprising a small motor. A single burn  
> unit could provide a really nice elliptical LEO orbit, perhaps 680km to  2000km.  
> Wouldn't that be interesting.  I notice that there is an  Austrian university 
> team who have developed a cubesat sized ion propulsion  system asking if 
> anyone would like to try it.  So, while this may initially  seem a 'wild idea'  it 
> is based on technology that is very nearly a  reality.
> Worth investigating?   
> David  G0MRF
> In a message dated 30/05/2008 23:22:37 GMT Standard Time, vk3jed at gmail.com  
> writes:
> At 12:15  AM 5/31/2008, Edward Cole wrote:
>> Once you total the costs it  may actually be cheaper to build a new
>> satellite and launch  it!
>> Back the effort for P3E and Eagle/P4.
> That too, yes, a new  bird would be the easiest approach 
> indeed.  Still, as I said, it was  interesting contemplating how such 
> a recovery might be achieved with  today's technology. :)
> 73 de VK3JED
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at 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

More information about the AMSAT-BB mailing list