[amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight

[Paul Stoetzer]

True. That is a problem, though it's certainly a separate issue from
the design and construction of the satellite.

The best the amateur satellite community can do is cultivate
relationships with those who wish to use our frequencies and hopefully
receive some benefit. For example, several CubeSats have been launched
using the ISIS TRXUV Transceiver as their communication system. That
transceiver has the capability of being used in loopback mode that
provides an FM-to-DSB single channel transponder. Perhaps if we ask
nicely, we can get use of one or two of those when the organization
that built and launched them are done with them.

73,

Paul, N8HM

On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:59 PM, B J <va6bmj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/1/14, Paul Stoetzer <n8hm at arrl.net> wrote:
>> The Wikipedia article on CubeSats
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat) has a very nice summary of why
>> they are the present and future of the small satellite industry:
>>
>> "The CubeSat specification accomplishes several high-level goals.
>> Simplification of the satellite's infrastructure makes it possible to
>> design and produce a workable satellite at low cost. Encapsulation of
>> the launcher–payload interface takes away the prohibitive amount of
>> managerial work that would previously be required for mating a
>> piggyback satellite with its launcher. Unification among payloads and
>> launchers enables quick exchanges of payloads and utilization of
>> launch opportunities on short notice."
>>
>> I've noticed from reading this board's current posts and archives that
>> there is a bias against CubeSats from some due to a belief that they
>> are somehow inherently limited in capability, unreliable, and short
>> lived, but there is nothing inherent in the CubeSat format that makes
>> it that way, it's simply a standardized way to build a satellite.
>
> <snip>
>
> I think part of the opposition from the amateur radio community comes
> from an attitude of certain cubesat users that they have a right to
> use spectrum which is specifically allocated for amateur use.  All
> they do is claim that they're "amateurs" (by not being affiliated with
> government or industry) and the law appears to let them get away with
> it.  If hams have objections to it, they're told to get lost by those
> same users, almost as if hams have no right to those frequencies.
>
> Then again, what do you expect from a segment of the population that
> regards amateur radio as an anachronism?
>
> 73s
>
> Bernhard VA6BMJ @ DO33FL