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

Re: Keep It Simple Silly

At 05:23 AM 10/1/2007, SV1BSX wrote:

>....hmmm, and its also unfair to don't say that,  the possibility for a
>malfuction with 20,000 vs
>20 transistors is ....  1,000 times greater !
>Simple mathematics... even if  these 20,000 transistors
>do a better job,  the risk  is too big.

Well, I don't think the risk of failure should be keeping us in the 
1970's.  Sure, the SDX is untested, but so was every other technology 
that is used in space at one stage.  If you don't take the risk, you 
don't learn how to enable these things to survive in space either.  I 
certainly like the idea of a backup analog transponder, so that the 
satellite can perform some useful function, even if its primary 
"experiment" fails.  Having older technology alongside the new also 
gives a benchmark to compare against, in terms of how they degrade 
over time in the space environment.

Oh, and we don't seem to get the same complaints about the digital 
birds that have been flying for over 2 decades, or newer and more 
complex IHUs that have flown.  The way I see it, is new technology 
has to be flown when the risks seem acceptable to make it worth 
putting into space.  I don't have a problem with having backup, in 
case the experiment fails (obviously, there is a weight penalty 
here), but my question is whether there is really any value in an am 
Amateur satellite service that does little more than puts "more of 
the same old stuff" in orbit.  Shouldn't be putting some of our 
energy into finding out how to safely use new technologies in the 
space environment at an affordable cost?

73 de VK3JED

Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb