[amsat-bb] Re: A0 40 replacement

Bryce Salmi bstguitarist at gmail.com
Wed Sep 4 10:52:36 PDT 2013

Correct, there is a happy medium that must be met in frequency/ease of use.
This argument does not neglect the need for additional improvements on
ground station capabilities. What's to stop the improvement of making
accessing higher frequencies easier for the average ham operator? Putting
some effort into both ends of the equation might force an overall
improvement in all aspects of the problem.

With that happy medium comes the reality of actually obtaining a launch.
Smaller satellites have a much better likelihood of actually flying for an
affordable price. There's a nice saying in the rocket world that applies
nicely to the satellite world.

"The worst rocket is the rocket that never flies"


On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Gus <8p6sm at anjo.com> wrote:

> Truly.
> However, to include operators with modest shacks, you need to allow
> operation on modes A, B and/or J.  A satellite operating on 24.0 GHz won't
> be of interest to the average ham.  Not until the average ham has 24.0 GHz
> capable antennas, feedlines, amplifiers, transceivers, etc, in his shack.
> It's a vicious circle.  Smaller satellites are easier to launch, but
> support smaller antennas.  This means higher frequencies, which excludes
> more potential users.  Reduction in potential user-base leads to reduced
> support (financial) from said user-base.  With less money to spend, it
> becomes more difficult to obtain a launch, and to build the highly
> miniaturized spacecraft in the first place.....
> On 09/04/2013 11:31 AM, Bryce Salmi wrote:
>> Yea but increasing frequency helps with that. With directional antennas
>> the satellite would need attitude control which would benefit greatly from
>> miniaturization. For the most part, miniaturization would come from
>> incorporating systems on chips. Most op amps and microcontrollers are much
>> smaller than their packages so including those systems on a single die in a
>> single package are capable of massive savings in space. This is what made
>> smart phones even possible .
>> Gus <8p6sm at anjo.com> wrote:
>>     On 09/04/2013 02:26 AM, Brenton Salmi wrote:
>>         Let's put it in another possible context: Create an extremely
>>         dense and reliable LEO platform in cube-sat form that weigh's
>>         a fraction of AO-40's weight using today's high-density
>>         components/systems and create a reliable and feature rich HEO
>>         cubesat.
>>     The only problem with this, is that certain components can't be
>>     miniaturized.  Example: Antennas.  And HEO satellites need more
>>     sophisticated antennas.
>>     Pity the cube-sat idea didn't finish up with a ten INCH cube...
>>     --
>>     73, de Gus 8P6SM
>>     Barbados, the easternmost isle.
>>     ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>> ------------
>>     Sent via AMSAT-BB at 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<http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb>
>> --
>> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> --
> 73, de Gus 8P6SM
> Barbados, the easternmost isle.

More information about the AMSAT-BB mailing list