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

Re: Re: ArcJet Update

>  Instead we could have reduced the apogee height
>making it a 16h orbit, but this also makes not such a big deal at
>the low inclination and the pathloss also does not really get much
>better..  so what?

Well, if it was possible to reduce the apogee 10K KM or so it would have 
made a small difference... possibly allowing higher NF downconverters to 
work ala "easysat" guidelines.  But I also contend that a HEMT preamp (which 
is the only really "extra" requirement over the "easysat" scenario) for a 
groundstation is NO BIG DEAL.

The 16h orbit would have been nice (but only if it could have been kept 
stable, which is doubtful under the circumstances) in that antennas could 
have been pointed at a "fixed apogee" in the sky, meaning that rotors 
wouldn't have been required for ground stations.
But with the low inclination, polar mounts could be made to work, and with 
the demise of C-band systems, they should be available for many of us for 

>Indeed, it is very disappointing that we could not demonstrate the
>Arcjet burning "hot". On the other hand, ATOS has never flown before
>and it is highly experimental and rocket science. At least we learned
>that this type of TFMC (mass flow controller) is not flight worthy..
>Something which could not have simulated on ground..

> > 7. What's going to break next?
> >     ---------------------------
>No risk, no fun?

Yup, AO-40 is more interesting and fun for a technical type like me *WITH* 
the problems.  I've actually caught myself trying to analyze what has 
happened, and I've been fairly correct so far in my analysis.. but 
thankfully, I've kept it mostly to myself!!!  :O)

Fred W0FMS

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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