[amsat-bb] Who I'm voting for (long)

[Bruce Perens]

Oops, sorry to leave a piece out:

> About those thrusters. Those AMSAT-EA satellites are going to

They will do:

Orbit change.
Orbit maintenance.
Collision avoidance.
Deorbit.

That is not coming from AMSAT-NA or any non-Open organization.

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 2:39 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> I see a lot of "old space" vs. "new space" in what you wrote, Steve. To
> start with:
>
> Some, if not all of the NDAs state that the content of the NDA and its
> existence will not be disclosed by AMSAT.
>
> The big difference here is confidentiality vs. transparency. New space is
> represented by organizations that are extremely transparent. LibreSpace
> <https://libre.space/> is a good example: everything they do is 100% Open
> Source, and they built the satellites that AMSAT-EA is launching, and a
> huge worldwide ground station network. Those Genesis N and L satellites
> <http://perens.com/static/AppliedIon/AMSAT-EA-Newsletter_11-2019.pdf> have
> electric thrusters by Applied Ion Systems <https://appliedionsystems.com/>,
> A USA-based researcher, also 100% Open Source. ORI is similar: USA based,
> 100% open.
>
> About those thrusters. Those AMSAT-EA satellites are going to
>
> Then, there is AMSAT. You imply (if not confirm) that AMSAT has agreements
> so secret that they can't tell the membership that they exist.
>
> Why are all of the other guys open? Because 100% openness is the only
> strategy that protects you from ITAR/EAR and its equivalents in other
> nations. It is proprietary research that is protected by ITAR, not the
> stuff you publish. Ask commercial companies like 3D Robotics
> <https://www.3dr.com/>, who have the US Government as *their major
> customer,* and participate in Dronecode <https://www.dronecode.org/>
> because 100% public disclosure is the only good way to get around ITAR.
>
> There used to be a justification for AMSAT's secrecy, in that we thought
> that nobody would launch our satellites if we didn't act like old space.
> But those other organizations are getting more satellites launched than
> AMSAT has been. They are also building more, and designing more.
>
> It illustrates the problem that you were made afraid, by AMSAT's ITAR
> preoccupation, to publicly distribute the plans for *a plastic model of
> the appearance of a cubesat.* There just can't be anything that isn't
> public knowledge about that.
>
> If we all continue to vote for more of the same old stuff, I am convinced
> that AMSAT will continue its slide toward bankruptcy and irrelevance, and
> will have a smaller and smaller working group, and eventually there won't
> be an AMSAT and the open guys will take over anyway. It would be much
> better for AMSAT to join the present.
>
> I will be voting for Bob and Howie, because they are unquestionable space
> professionals with a long history of innovation, and after Tom steps down
> we won't have anyone else who is close to Bob and Howie's level. And Jeff,
> because while he's more of a regular ham than a rocket scientist, he is
> open to the future where others are not.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Bruce
>
>

-- 
Bruce Perens - CEO at stealth startup. I'll tell you what it is eventually
:-)