[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]


on 6/1/01 12:52 AM, Robert Oler at cvn65vf94@msn.com wrote:

> In the end AO-40 WAS A MISTAKE.  The amateur community invested to much in
> one basket and instead we should have bought a "Lot" of Oscar 10 type
> platforms with varying transponder systems in them.
> I realize that the "platform" might have been different but instead of one
> big now sick bird we could have launched a LOT of AO-10 type platforms for
> the money.

AO-40 a mistake?  OK, Robert, this drivel doesn't surprise me as you have
said this before.

Let's see, the mistake was made by a plug being left in the engine valve
that should have been removed.  Human error.  Could have happened anytime.

The AMSAT BOD, recognized that while we can build satellites, we aren't
rocket scientists.  They recognized that while it is nice, a propulsion
system is probably the most costly and most dangerous part of a satellite.
We've had success with 1 out of 3 propulsion systems.  If we were playing
baseball that's a good average.  In space comms, that's not so good,
particularly when it's all based on volunteer money.  So the most costly and
dangerous element has been removed.

Now, what about the RF platform or the digital platform on AO-40 was the
mistake?  It has already been explained to you about 10,000 freakin times,
that we could NOT have launched multiple AO-10 type platforms from the
Ariane V, that launch costs are extremely high, that we built a satellite
that fit in the available space given and that we put as much in it as we
possibly could both as experimental stuff and as redundant stuff.

I'm guessing, but let's say that each AO-10 type costs us 2 million to
build.  That's 6 million dollars.  Let's say AO-40 cost us 8 million
dollars.  OK, so gee, you say, it's cheaper to build 3 AO-10s.  But launch
costs are 2 million each.  Now the 3 AO-10's cost 12 million while 1 AO-40
costs 9 million.  Again, these are numbers pulled out of thin air.

Frankly, the only reason why we have a working bird was that we put a ton of
crap in there!

AO-40 is a HUGE success.  Never before has a bird with this much capability
been up there.  Let's see, we have an S-band downlink that works great.  We
finally have RUDAK working on a satellite (never had that before), LEILA
works fantastic and it is new.  We have more transponder bandwidth than ever
before.  We have a stable orbit.  We still may have other uplink and
downlink bands that may possibly work (70 cm d/l still hasn't been tried on
the high gain antennas).

AO-40 is the most successful and capable bird ever put up even though it
isn't 100%.  That cannot be argued.



Jon Ogden
NA9D (ex: KE9NA)



"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."

Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org