Re: [amsat-bb] De-ORBIT issues, AMSAT, next steps...

[Diane Bruce <db@xxxxxx>]

On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:06:27PM -0400, Larry Kayser wrote:
> Assi Friedman wrote:
> 
...
> >My experience
> >with this is that de-orbiting is a political white elephant. We all know 
> >how

Not if it is done with the right people.

> >years
> >down the road means that in effect you have to double your spacecraft.
> >
> Disagreement.  That depends on from what orbit you are speaking about.  
> As I read this email, and I might have this wrong, I think you are 
> speaking mainly to the synchronous orbit type of spacecraft.  I am not 

Folks are already developing systems to rescue synchronous orbit sats,
we were never in the running for that business.
http://www.orbitalrecovery.com/ It's interesting reading.

I assumed Larry was talking about going after some of the LEO space junk
rather than the sychronous junk. 

A "hunter killer" sat would be feasible for AMSAT folks. One launch
one mission one use. I know the u.s. military were working on such things.
As far as hams getting any "fun" out of a "hunter killer" Well, just
maybe we could get two rides, one for the HK the other for the fun sat.
If we demonstrate we are trying to do "our bit."

> sure what is meant by "double" if that means the mass of the spacecraft 
> or the dollar cost of the spacecraft or does it mean the extra 
> complexity of the spacecraft.  Off the top I choose to disagree with 

So, given the scenario I gave above, this is one point where I see Assi as
being potentially right. We get to fly two birds, hopefully for free.

> you, there is no way that I can see that any form of de-orbit would 
> "double" anything in a spacecraft.

Building it into a sat from the get-go is easy and would not add much mass,
or ground safety concerns. 

> >You
> >have to add limited ACS detection/control (to point it), basic command and
> >control, basic telemetry, basic power, and of course a motor. All of this
> >together means that we lose mass and volume which we pay for, and we never
> >get scientific or economic return.

The point Larry is making, is that there are people that would potentially
pay for us to "play." Space junk is becoming a huge problem. It is also
possible that the military already have it and would really rather we
didn't come play too. 

> Well the investor in this model does not get an economic return, that is 
> for certain.  The simple fact is however that once a liability is 
> generated, a dead spacecraft left in synchronous orbit generates a 

Again, see the orbitalrecovery.com web site.

> >Try and tell DishTV (example) that they
> >have to forgo two transponders for a deorbiting system and you will quickly
> >see the issue go up for discussion in congress!

Any synchronous communications satellite has to guarantee they have enough
fuel at end-of-life, to be able to kick them out of position, int a
graveyard orbit. They don't need to de-orbit.
(There are interesting papers on this on the web)

> The fact that one organization was able to develop a de-orbit system 
> reminds me that I once convened a review board in a major corporation 
> after the organization had sent a major digital transmission system off 
> to manufacturing.  My question for the review board, was what would it 
> cost us to do this a second time?  I funded three days of hard work for 
> the senior developers.  When we finished the answer was in the order of 
> 20 percent to 25 percent of the invested amount.  I do know that the 

Exactly what we should be doing when we build amateur sats. Build one,
rinse, lather, repeat. Not *exciting* but oh boy, could we have had
a nice network of sats by now. (Amateur Radio is a service too no?)
We are starting to do this with Eagle at least.

> thousands of dollars and now they are on the market for the same price 
> as analogue modems.  AMSAT needs to be the supplier of de-orbit boxes 

Incidentally, this is why we have a BPL problem today. ;-)
OFDM is awlfully nice for "bumpy" cable or phone line, but oh, those
multiple carriers really suck for powerline. But I digress. ;-)

> AMSAT has a very unique position in the space business if it chooses to 
> exploit the opportunity. AMSAT can and does attract the best and 
> brightest of our young people, people who can come and contribute and 
> learn after University, and then move on to Industry with greater 
> knowledge and experience than they can gain as an entry level employee 
> anywhere else. 

Well, see whatcha think of my comments above Larry. 

> How do we want AMSAT to change?

Bingo.

- Diane Bruce, VA3DB
----
Sent via amsat-bb@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org