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

Re: eagle costs



Kevin et al:
The Eagle team is proceeding very much along the lines you suggest.  We are:
1.  Stating our goals and objectives, derived from a structure which is 
capable of being launched from many launch vehiclesw ==> maximum 
flexibility for launch.  Structure drives power generation.
2.  Starting from a stated objective of the RF payload.  Rather than 
waiting for a launch opportunity and then scramblng to cobble something 
together at the last minute, we started with a payload which is 
minimally "worth the effort".  We feel that this is better than the mad 
scramble approach.  Based on my experience, I very STRONGLY agree with 
this approach -- my opinion.
3.  We are re using many components -- the IHU (shared with P3E and 
Eagle's successor), the CAN bus for control (shared with P3E and Eagle's 
successor). 
4.  We have settled on standard module sizes, allowing certain things 
"on the shelf". 
5.  We are planning each module with an eye toward duplication -- either 
for the shelf, or Eagle's successor.
6.  We're still writing specs, but I'd expect, based on the above, that 
the power system will be standardized.
7.  We are working toward more explicit, public documentation so that we 
can employ more builders than historically.

The Amsat symposium will discuss Eagle in great detail.  Please come, 
ask questions, and understand. Then help us get there by assisting in 
the fund raising.

73,
Jim
wb4gcs@amsat.org


wa6fwf wrote:

>Hi All,
>  I wish to thank everyone for responding,some were very interesting and 
>enlightening...
>  
>   The DoD Space Test Program (STP) looks very interesting and I'm glad that 
>someone  mentioned that it is being looked into.
>
>   One person missed my point I guess, that the transponders are not the cost 
>but the support for those transponders is, if you cut back on transponders 
>you cut back on the support requirements, smaller solar panels, smaller 
>batteries, smaller sat equals cheaper launch.
>
>  One might almost think that we could be going the wrong way on the whole 
>project, the old cart before the horse situation, might be better to be 
>looking for a cheap or free launch opportunity and then build that sat to 
>match, especially since everyones agrees that the launch is the most 
>expensive part.
>
> I would think this would mean  that we would have to have a standardized 
>control system, power system and xponders sitting on a shelf so we could 
>react quickly when the opportunity presented itself.
>
>   I also agree with the one comment why must every sat be almost from 
>scratch?  lets build on what works.
>
> I think we should always be seeking new ways to do it cheaper and better.
>
>   Anyway Thank You for  all the replies..
>
>73
>Kevin
>WA6FWF 
>#19623
>
> whether you want a big sat or little sat, remember to join and donate or 
>there wont be any sat
>----
>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
----
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



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home