[amsat-bb] The next satellite

["Robert Oler" <cvn65vf94@xxxxxxx>]

>From: "Drew Glasbrenner" <glasbrenner@mindspring.com>
>To: "Robert Oler" <cvn65vf94@msn.com>, <amsat-bb@AMSAT.Org>
>Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] misinformed posters on qrz.com
>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:21:22 -0400
>
>One more point....
>
> > are a trouble maker because they dont know the information.
>
>Exactly. The uninformed are rallying to persuade people to not fund another
>satellite. Why aren't you fired up too?
>
>Drew, KO4MA
>
Hello Drew.

Why am I not fired up about posters like on QRz.com?  Well because I 
recognize it for what it is...people who have opinions contrary to the 
established "group", people who dont know whatthey are talking about but 
really dont have harm in mind they just dont know that they dont know (the 
theory being why doesnt everyone be as smart as you and I...grin or as one 
person on this forum said "why dont they just get a clue") and then there 
are some who find a bandwagon and want to role on it.

And the last two really dont matter in terms of getting funding for another 
satellite.  Either the case is going to be convincing that the sat should be 
funded or its not.

Look, I think that there are two things that AMSAT NA ought to address that 
would make the bird somewhat more fundable (but then what do I know...)

The first is that I really think that the board should poll at least the 
members (I have no data but I bet you the AMSAT NA members are the "ones" 
that usually carry the bulk of financing for sats among US hams) and maybe 
everyone who cares to express an opinion about how and what they want the 
next satellite(s) to be.  Its just my opinion but AO-40 got out of hand in 
terms of the project itself.  Even had it worked 100% it took to long and 
spent to much money for EVERYTHING to be riding on one launch/bird.  If it 
dies tomorrow (and thats not impossible given the past) it will be a 
catastrophe of the first magnitude for Phase III sats and the manufactors of 
the stuff that composes the ground stations AND frankly many satellite 
operators will lose interest.  I'd be curious to know the final cost of the 
bird but for what was spent on it it foreclosed a lot of other options.

Second well I'll be kind here but from whatI have read THE failure of the 
satellite wasnt the technology or the propulsion system.  I dont know why 
the arcjet failed and all went away (and to bad it never fired hot) but the 
failure of the main motor was not so much because it was assembled 
incorrectly BUT BECAUSE THe correct instructions had apparantly never been 
recieved on how to assemble it.   hence THE FAILURE that should be addressed 
is how that "happened".  If you dont have any expertise on what you are 
doing then you darn sure better make a good effort at having the correct 
instructions.  As ARtemus shows the motor works good when you put it 
together right and I bet that it could have been put together right by the 
talent that built the satellite had they had the right instructions.

I do believe NA is going about it right...small sats and probably the right 
band...and my guess is that I'll contribute more to it (I am a life member 
so no dues) as things go along.  I would like to see it defined more.

Robert

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

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