[amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle

[sco@sco-inc.com]

It was not the fault of "proceedures". It was the fault of the humans 
in the chain of command who were responsible for the launch. Either 
someone did not follow the checklist proceedure for preparation prior 
to launch or a person or persons failed to develop that checklist and 
require and supervise its (checklist) use. People make mistakes thats 
why you have checklists, especially with critical tasks, ask any 
pilot. Having a critical task of removing something prior to launch 
so the motor does not destroy the spacecraft (after it is fired) is 
more than a little mistake. So you are saying that the hams who 
launched earlier sats did not have checklists? Who in their right 
mind attempts to launch a multi million dollar satellite without 
having a checklists of proceedures? I guess thats why they must calls 
us "amateurs"?

And organizations like Amsat-NA and Amsat-DL wants us (hams) to 
freely give our money to launch future sats when this is the reason 
given for a disaster? And ask us to hope and believe that next time 
will be better.

Les W4SCO

At 12:15 AM 12/14/2007, you wrote:
>Les,
>
>Not stupidity, because I saw NASA commit the same kind of errors (km 
>vs miles?).  Every spacecraft command signal at Goldstone was 
>confirmed by a second person (or more) before transmission.  Why? 
>because people make mistakes.
>
>It is a failure in procedures.  Any critical operation should not 
>rely on a single person or action.  Every step should have 
>oversight.  Of course, Monday morning quarterbacks can always see 
>clearly.  Not having been there and not knowing the preparations or 
>planning effort - I only speculate.  Its spilled milk - let it go.
>
>Learning from error, that is what is needed.  Performing exhaustive 
>project reviews.  This is something my current employer does a lot 
>of.  We debrief everything (and everyone) to death.  I think we get 
>better at what we do in the process.
>
>Experience and Expertise come at the expense of failure.
>
>BTW I troubleshoot and repair things for a living (wrote failure 
>analysis trees on the F-14).  Final analysis - never assume - check again.
>
>73 Ed - KL7UW
>
>At 10:53 AM 12/13/2007, sco at sco-inc.com wrote:
>
>>The failure of AO-40 was not a problem of "rocket science". It was
>>caused by human stupidity ... not writing down what had to be removed
>>before flight so if the only person who knew that info could not be
>>available their backup would.
>>
>>Les
>>
>>At 12:25 PM 12/13/2007, you wrote:
>> >Les,
>> >
>> >Yes, they are aware of the fate of AO-40. They have had their own problems
>> >over the years and they understand that this is rocket science.
>> >
>> >Rick
>> >W2GPS
>> >AMSAT LM2232
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: sco at sco-inc.com [mailto:sco at sco-inc.com]
>> >Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:15 PM
>> >To: Rick Hambly (W2GPS)
>> >Cc: amsat-BB
>> >Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
>> >
>> >
>> >after AO-40 blew I would find it hard to believe that they would
>> >trust the success of their mission with another AO40 type sat
>> >onboard. Are they aware of our past track record?
>> >
>> >Good if they let us.
>> >
>> >Les
>> >
>> >At 10:08 AM 12/13/2007, you wrote:
>> > >Les,
>> > >
>> > >Intelsat has already told me that it is OK to attach a satellite with
>> >motor,
>> > >tank and fuel. In fact, they offered to fuel our satellite with 
>> the excess
>> > >fuel from filling their own tanks.
>> > >
>> > >Rick
>> > >W2GPS
>> > >AMSAT LM2232
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >-----Original Message-----
>> > >From: amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org] On
>> > >Behalf Of sco at sco-inc.com
>> > >Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:28 AM
>> > >To: Andrew Glasbrenner
>> > >Cc: amsat-BB
>> > >Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Phase 4 versus Eagle
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >I doubt that would ever happen. If I was the CEO of the launch sat i
>> > >would never let an "amateur" rocket motor hitch a ride on my multi
>> > >million dollar bird. Just like NASA won't let us do it.
>> > >
>> > >If you can think of a way for us to get from GTO without a motor and
>> > >fuel then it might happen.
>> > >
>> > >Les W4SCO
>> > >www.scoincsoftware.com
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >At 10:08 PM 12/12/2007, you wrote:
>> > > >One of the possibilities I have not seen relayed well from the meetings
>> >to
>> > > >general knowledge is that it may be possible for Intelsat to 
>> attach Eagle
>> > >to
>> > > >one of their satellites, and drop us off in GTO on their way 
>> to GEO. This
>> > > >possibility alone is worth working this opportunity out to it's
>> >conclusion.
>> > > >
>> > > >It has become very apparent to me that we will not fund a HEO solely on
>> >our
>> > > >current membership donations. Ever. We have to go for the 
>> outside funding
>> > > >Tom mentioned, and the best way to do that is a simple, tool-like
>> > > >application like a GEO, geared heavily towards EMCOMM. Too many of us
>> >have
>> > > >taken the wait and see approach when it comes to supporting a HEO
>> >project.
>> > > >The money has to come first, then the satellite gets built 
>> and launched,
>> > >not
>> > > >the other way around.
>> > > >
>> > > >73, Drew KO4MA
>> > >
>> > >_______________________________________________
>> > >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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>