[amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)

[John B. Stephensen]

The engine used in AO-40 was the same model used in all previous P3 series 
satellites.

AO-40's size was determined by the space donated by the ESA.

If the AMSAT-DL Mars mission is a fantasy then P3 may never fly as its 
launch is to be funded by that mission.

Suitsat seems perfectly reasonable as it is a UV linear transponder with the 
government paying for the launch. This is what most AMSAT members want.

73,

John
KD6OZH

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rocky Jones" <orbitjet at hotmail.com>
To: <ke9v at sdf.lonestar.org>; "Amsat BB" <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 19:30 UTC
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)


>
> Jeff...
>
>
>>
>> Clearly the kind of mistake that caused the catastrophic failure could
>> have happened on any spacecraft assembled by any organization.
>
> nope.
>
> OK anyone has a statistical chance of dying or any project has a 
> statistical chance of failing but the more complex a project is the more 
> likely it is to fail...and AO-40 as it grew more complex needed larger 
> size which then needed a more powerful rocket engine...which ...
>
> this is "mission creep" (or more correctly design creep) and as I noted it 
> is a common cause of failure among homebuilders.  Unless you are "rolling 
> your own" (ie doing the aerodynamics yourself) most home builders build 
> something that professionals have at least deigned.  Where they get into 
> trouble is when they start adding things and making the project outside 
> the scope of what was well understood.
>
> had AO-40 not been "supersat" it would not have needed the larger 
> engine...
>
>>
>> You can call it "simple" if you like but a) it remains firmly affixed to
>> earth and b) it is being sold to the German government as an adjunct to
>> a mission to Mars. If you want to call an interplanetary mission
>> "simple" that's your call, but P3E was scheduled to be launched years
>> ago to support the P5 mission that was supposed to launch in 2009 and
>> I'll buy the first beer whenever either of those fly...
>
> The one to Mars will never fly.Its a fantasy project..but 3E eventually 
> will.  I think.
>>
>
>>
>> For the last time (from me, I promise) we have been told in no uncertain
>> terms that the cost for a launch to GTO that would carry a craft of the
>> size required to provide a happy medium of solar panels and antennas
>> will cost no less than $6 million US and maybe as much as $8 million.
>
> If that is the case then we are, after 3E gets its launch done in HEO 
> sats...a reasonable hope is that with some new launch vehicles coming on 
> IE Falcon9 etc there might be some opportunities for "reduced rate" 
> launches...but who knows.  What I wonder is if there is any reluctance on 
> the part of launch vehicle providers after the 40 incident to let "amateur 
> propulsion" ride on their vehicle.  It is after all "rocket science".
>
> Look my only argument is that reality should guide where the dollars are 
> spent, since as you point out, the dollars are not going as far as they 
> use to.  I bet suitsat is going to run (after all cost are figured in) 
> around 50,000 or so.
>
> thanks for a pleasant discussion...can pick this up later tonight but am 
> off for a little "Mission creep" myself.  Got the 51 foot tower up on the 
> new place at Santa Fe, but the XYL bought the tower of my dreams and we 
> are going to get it on its concrete stand today.
>
> later
>
> Robert WB5MZO
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you.
> http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1
> _______________________________________________
> 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