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

Re: Bill Ress - N6GHz - Board Candidate - OperatingSurvey



At 08:28 PM 7/21/2008, Dave hartzell wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Andrew Glasbrenner
><glasbrenner@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Obviously, the GEO is probably the most expensive, with HEO being
> >> close to it,
> >
> > Not necessarily. A small package on Intelsat may be significantly more
> > affordable than Eagle. On the other hand, putting everything from Eagle on
> > Intelsat would likely be more expensive. There are also considerably
> > different risks. Eagle has all the things we've been good about messing up
> > previously, and a Intelsat rideshare has almost none.
>
>As much as I like the idea of an Intelsat ride share, I think there
>will be too much non-satellite, non-ham stuff involved, e.g. legal
>things and contracts.  What kind of MOUs, memorandums, contracts, etc.
>are going to be involved?  Will hands be tied, due to some kind of
>required assurance, from either Intelsat or its manufacturer?  Will we
>have to buy expensive insurance, so that if the payload malfunctions
>and disruptions Intelsat operations, things are covered?   What
>commitments and assurances need to be put into place?
>
>No one knows at this point.  Intelsat isn't going to be thrilled with
>a low-quality product from us, so therefore AMSAT's costs go up, to
>help minimize their risks.
>
> > As Bob B said earlier...there are several tradeoffs to consider, and let me
> > say even the BOD doesn't have the full details to consider yet.
>
>So this is why attaching a "costs vs. benefits" analysis to a simple
>survey is so difficult!
>
> > Personally, I'm in favor of doing whatever project gets us on station with
> > long distance comms first, without breaking the piggybank, or too 
> much risk.
> > It is, without a doubt, a very difficult and complicated decision.
>
>I'm glad we can agree on this!
>
>Honestly, thanks for chiming into the BB, Drew.  It is my hope that
>all the other directors are reading.
>
>73,
>
>Dave
>AF6KD (ex n0tgd)

The Intelsat should be much less expensive:
1-free ride
2-free power
3-free stabilization

All you provide is RF, antennas, and a communication processor.

But the location is specified by Intelsat so only one-third of the 
earth is covered.  Which third do you chose for satellite #1.  For 
whole-earth coverage you need rides to three locations 120-deg 
longitude apart.  Far north latitudes will probably not get coverage 
due to low angles to GEO.

For my location at 60.7 latitude the GEO path is 21 degrees elevation 
due south and is lower as you move east or west.

So continuing with Eagle offers world coverage over a couple days of 
orbiting.  GEO stays in one position.

I will see you in Anchorage, Drew!


*****************************************************
73, Ed - KL7UW              BP40iq, 6m - 3cm
144-EME: FT-847, mgf-1801, 4x-xp20, 185w
http://www.kl7uw.com     AK VHF-Up Group
NA Rep. for DUBUS: dubususa@hotmail.com
***************************************************** 

_______________________________________________
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



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home