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

RE: Computer Woes...

Read it again...He's tried to submit corrections, as have I and others. Some of the definitions in the glossary are so wrong it's almost a joke. How about this one...

>Sun Synchronous Orbit -  An orbit, usually a polar orbit inclined above 95 degrees, that allows the satellite to >maximize it's exposure to the sun thus allowing solar panels to continuously provide power. AO-7 is an example >of a satellite that is in this type of orbit. 

Sun synchronous means it passes over the same longitude at the same solar time each day. The name is self descriptive! There are special subsets of this orbit ("dusk to dawn") that leaves the satellite in sun along the terminator for extended periods of time but that is a special case, not the majority. Just about any imaging mission is a sun synch orbit to provide consistent lighting of the ground. Most are just before or after solar noon to prevent long shadows, provide max illumination, and still allow enough shadow for directional cues.  Canada's MOST is a good example of a dusk to dawn orbit. SO-50 and RS-12 are good examples of non-sun synchronous orbits, notice their pass time drift over time.

Here's one so funny I laughed out loud the first time I read it...

>Television Receive Only (TVRO) -  Small satellite dishes recycled from the dish television industry that are >popular with amateurs in southern latitudes. TVRO antenna systems typically have less gain than other antenna >systems. 

TVRO dishes come in two flavors, DSS/DishNetwork/KU types 18-36" in diameter, and C band dishes from 4 to >14 _feet_ in diameter. The parts about gain and latitude are damned funny as well as wrong.

The idea of a glossary is a fine one, but it appears to be a weekend project that wasn't reviewed before it was posted, or wasn't reviewed by someone with the experience and knowledge to filter the good stuff from the made up stuff. EVERYTHING that gets posted to that webpage should be reviewed by at least 3 people other than the authors, preferably someone who is experienced or a professional in the field when it comes to technical articles.

I'd rather the information not be there then be wrong. I can see some potential sponsor, donor, or cubesat group checking out the webpage and deciding we don't know near what we think we do and heading elsewhere. 

73, Drew KO4MA

-----Original Message-----
From: "Christensen, Eric H" <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU>
Sent: Aug 8, 2005 11:51 AM
To: kevin schuchmann <wa6fwf@pacbell.net>, amsat-bb <amsat-bb@amsat.org>
Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Computer Woes...

Why don't you write your own article and do your own research and show where
your idea is correct?  After you write it up, submit it to AMSAT to be added
to the library.

That is one thing I can't stand.  Don't talk about the problems, provide the

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