[amsat-bb] Re: NASA Kills Ulysses

[John B. Stephensen]

This sounds like the AMSAT-Intelsat deal except that the Intelsat agreement 
would allow the amateur payload to operate in parallel with the primary 
payload. A number of the RS series amateur satellites also operated this 
way.

73,

John
KD6OZH

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "STeve Andre'" <andres at msu.edu>
To: <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 16:49 UTC
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: NASA Kills Ulysses


> Thats a neat idea.  We'd have to build the whatever to the physical
> specs provided, and pay for the extra fuel needed.  Sadly, I think
> in order to make this work we're talking real money, but perhaps I
> am wrong.  Perhaps there is a tax-writeoff somehow?  I'd like to
> hear of what the amsat folks have thought of along these lines;
> they know of the conditions of business in the field.
>
> --STeve Andre'
> wb8wsf  wn82
>
> On Wednesday 01 July 2009 12:43:39 David - KG4ZLB wrote:
>> I know it would be expensive but on the "if you spread your net wide
>> enough" view of thinking, could we not approach commercial satellite
>> projects prior to launch and bung a transponder on them only to be used
>> when the primary mission fails? OK, so you might win some, might lose
>> some and I know it would be expensive but it seems better than the
>> situation we have now, plus we could be potentially building in some
>> long term birds that would replace the current ageing fleet. It would be
>> a long term view, but it would be something!
>>
>> Presumably this has been brought up before but no harm in re-hashing it
>> for any new ideas especially with the BoD voting soon to happen! :-D
>>
>> 73
>>
>> David
>>
>> -
>> David
>> KG4ZLB
>> www.kg4zlb.com
>>
>> STeve Andre' wrote:
>> > About the only thing we could do is use them as training guides for
>> > receiving weak signals.  Satellities are not designed to qsy, or do
>> > anything other than they actual function(s), specified long before
>> > they were ever built.  Add more to a bird increases complexity, and
>> > also failures.
>> >
>> > I'll bet they turned it off to free up that frequency for something
>> > else.  If that is the case then we can't even really try monitoring.
>> >
>> > I've often wondered about the ham community using old systems
>> > but except for really rare cases, they are just too specific to do
>> > anything for us.
>> >
>> > --STeve Andre'
>> > wb8wsf  en82
>> >
>> > On Wednesday 01 July 2009 12:13:19 w7lrd at comcast.net wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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