[amsat-bb] Re: Geostationary Satellites

[Ken Ernandes]

What you're describing is the AMSAT Phase 3 paradigm which IMHO is still the most viable way to go.  

I would never say never, but we (AMSAT) haven't had great success with propulsion systems in our amateur satellites.  That is why I'd like to have more experience with successful propulsion events in Molniya-like orbits before I'd recommend attempting maintaining a GEO orbit.

73, Ken N2WWD

Sent from my iPad



On Oct 11, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Joe <nss at mwt.net> wrote:

> How hard (Energy) budget is it to have that giant elliptical orbit,  I can't remember what bird had it,  but it was an orbit named like moylina or something like that  where the perigee was very low but the apogee was like WAY out there giving passes that were extremely long.
> 
> Joe WB9SBD
> 
> The Original Rolling Ball Clock
> Idle Tyme
> Idle-Tyme.com
> http://www.idle-tyme.com
> 
> On 10/11/2011 3:27 PM, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:08:01 -0400
>> Ken Ernandes<n2wwd at mindspring.com>  wrote:
>> 
>> <snipped>
>> 
>>> I hope this is somehow helpful in understanding what AMSAT would really be up against if it  wanted to have an independent GEO satellite or consider a sub-GEO drifting orbit.
>> Thank you Ken, for the rocket scientist's take on it ;-)
>> 
>> It's refreshing to hear someone who actually has sat down and done the maths comment on how easy or hard it would be to put a satellite into a high orbit.
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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