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

[Gary "Joe" Mayfield]

I planned to stay out of this but I would like to know what --

"On AO40 a signature on a checkout document at launch site says motor was
checked by those responsible.  The checkout document (not amsat's) reveals
that the necessary mod to doc revealing need to do an extra operation was
not present."

means exactly.

     The first sentence is pretty clear, but the second one is fuzzy.  Does
it mean no one modified the document to explain another operation was needed
before launch?

Thanks,
Joe


-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org] On
Behalf Of rwmcgwier at gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 1:07 PM
To: amsat bb
Subject: [amsat-bb] Fw: Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)


Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: rwmcgwier at gmail.com

Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:05:42 
To: Rocky Jones<orbitjet at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)


This note is based on an almost complete ignorance of both projects.  On
AO40 a signature on a checkout document at launch site says motor was
checked by those responsible.  The checkout document (not amsat's) reveals
that the necessary mod to doc revealing need to do an extra operation was
not present.  Result: crap happens.  Everything tested before motor burn
seemed fine.  Don't know many craft that could take this amd go on to
deliver years of service.  We all cry over the lost opportunity but it was
still a major achievement.

Suitsat 1 worked before transport. It was tested.  We will never know what
went wrong in transit.

I understand everyone's desire for more and better results but before you
level a cannon, at least know what you are talking about.

73's
Bob n4hy

------Original Message------
From: Rocky Jones
Sender: amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org
To: n8fgv at usa.net
To: amsat bb
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
Sent: Aug 23, 2009 1:38 PM



> 
> Dan Schultz N8FGV
> 
> 

based on your logic no criticism whatsoever is warranted.

As for AO-40.  It failed for the same reason that suitsat 1 did, and for the
same reason that a lot of people who build their own airplane kill
themselves every year trying to "test fly it"....the project got to big for
the organization that was building it...ie their technical competence was
insufficient for the task at hand.

But in your view (at least as best as I understand it) that evaluation
should not be made because "at least they tried".

sorry I dont buy that logic

Robert WB5MZO

_________________________________________________________________
HotmailR is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. 
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:W
M_HYGN_faster:082009
_______________________________________________
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 from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

_______________________________________________
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