| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 02.08.14 14:04l 746 Lines 25499 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB9267
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V9 267
Path: IW8PGT<IZ3LSV<IQ2LB<DB0ANF<CX2SA
Sent: 140802/1201Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM #:8879 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB9267
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: SatPC32 with dual radios (Mike Sprenger)
2. Re: Equatorial Crossing Data (EQX) (easy predictions)
(Robert Bruninga)
3. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (Robert Bruninga)
4. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (Bryce Salmi)
5. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (Gus)
6. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (Gus)
7. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (Bryce Salmi)
8. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (Gus)
9. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (Paul Stoetzer)
10. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (M5AKA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 15:15:21 -0400
From: Mike Sprenger <mikesprenger@xxxxx.xxx>
To: Larry Ryan <llryan807@xxxxx.xxx>, AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] SatPC32 with dual radios
Message-ID:
<CAB4zG_Jaf+Fz+zPswK0mihhAeN6Oct-f95dWfjBP1SMx3_MC0A@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Larry,
So you need to match the Baud Rate on the radio and in the software by:
1. Looking in Menu Item 14 of the FT-817 (hold down the F Key for
couple seconds to access, then rotate the left knob to change to item '14')
2. Matching the radio baud rate setting with the Baud Rate setting in
SatPC32,
...On SatPC32, to get to the Baud Rate setting, you need to click the
"Model" pull down in the Radio Setup Window, and switch that setting to
Baudrate, then set the baud rate match the radio (best to do 38,400).
Lastly, you may need to enable RTS +12V to power the USB Level Converter in
your cable...
Hope this Helps,
Mike
W4UOO
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Larry Ryan <llryan807@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> I am trying to set up SatPC32 ver 12.8c "unregistered" with two FT-817s. My
> problem is that there is no CAT control on radio 1. Radio 2 works
> perfectly. Here is the setup:
> Radio 1, com port 2, delay 70 (tried 110 also)
> Radio 2, com port 5
> Checked Atom. RX/TX change only (no other boxes checked but tried the
> others)
> As I change from sat to sat, Radio 2 will change freq and be steered but
> there is no response from Radio 1
> If I remove Radio 2 (unplug the USB cable) and configure only a radio 1,
> there is no CAT control of radio 1.
> Computer is an HP Mini running Win7
> Watching Device Manager, I can unplug either USB cable and see port 2 or
> port 5 come and go as I plug and unplug.
>
> I have switched radios then switched the CAT USB cables (they are FTDI).
> Still radio 1 does not change.
>
> Leaving the radios plugged in to the same computer, I exited SatPC32 and
> started HRD and tested for CAT operation on each radio one at a time and
> they both work.
>
> My question: Why no CAT for radio 1? Why no error message? Are there any
> other troubleshooting steps I can take?
>
> I have searched just about everywhere on-line and see no one else having
> this problem. I have found that many have success with the dual non-duplex
> transceivers configuration.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
> Thanks, Larry W7DGP
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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
>
--
Thanks,
Mike Sprenger
(37.9167N 81.1244W is the Summit)
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 15:49:48 -0400
From: Robert Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Equatorial Crossing Data (EQX) (easy
predictions)
Message-ID: <3fa57c539aa7ffef21a10151b52fee2c@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Actually, using simple pass-times, it is possible to predict with a simple
pencil, all future pass times for several weeks.
Every satelite REPEATs their daily ground track every few days or so.
AO51 repeated every 5 days, and GO32 every 9. These were sun synchronous
and so not only the ground track repeated but the time of the passes
repeated as well.
See the examples on: http://aprs.org/MobileLEOtracking.html
The ISS is not sun synchronous, but these three rules will predict future
ISS passes without any stinkin-confusor:
1) If you hear one pass, 5 out of 7 times, the next one is about 90
minutes later.
2) The ISS REPEATS the same ground track every other day but 51 minutes
earlier.
3) For a given day, the same pass the next day is 23 minutes later.
This makes portable APRS operations in the wilderness easy. All you need
is ONE PASS time, and you can infer all the others for weeks using the
simple rules, and just keepin notes on pass TIMES when heard.
You don't need no-stinkin-computer. Satellites are in "orbit" and
completely predictable.
Just take your favorite satellite, print out a week of passes, and then
look for the "RULE" that will predict future passes. Then all you need to
remember, is the RULE.
Bob, WB4aPR
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of EMike McCardel
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 1:40 PM
To: Glen Gardner
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Equatorial Crossing Data (EQX)
Glen, Paul and Joseph,
Thank you for your replies. I am learning a lot here. My imagination has
been captured by learning to use the Satellabe and OscarLocator prepping
for my presentation on tracking satellites at the AMSAT Training Day
during the ARRL Centennial. I also discovered a construct involving a
globe offering a 3D rendition of of a pass. This is an interesting way to
demonstrate how the earth moves independent of the orbit. I can't help but
think that some of the analogue tools of the day still have relevancy.
EMike
EMike McCardel, KC8YLD
VP for Educational Relations AMSAT-NA
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Glen Gardner <glen.gardner@xxxxxxx.xxx>
wrote:
>
>
>
> You can easily find the times for equatorial crossing for ascending
passes from the element set.
>
>
> Consider Oscar 7
>
>
> Satellite: AO-07
> Catalog number: 07530
> Epoch time: 14211.80120610
> Element set: 27
> Inclination: 101.4754 deg
> RA of node: 192.2023 deg
> Eccentricity: 0.0011666
> Arg of perigee: 207.8798 deg
> Mean anomaly: 270.9717 deg
> Mean motion: 12.53605918 rev/day
> Decay rate: -2.2e-07 rev/day^2
> Epoch rev: 81698
> Checksum: 281
>
> The epoch time is the reference time for that element set. It also
happens to be the time for the ascending node (equatorial crossing
North-to-South).
> In this case it is "14211.80120610" which comes out to the year 2014,
day 211 and the hour comes out to 19.22 hours.. or approximately 19 hours,
13 minutes, 44 seconds.
>
> Ignoring the decay rate, the next ascending node will be in one orbital
period. You can get this by dividing the number of minutes in a day by the
mean motion: 1440/12.53605918=114.869 minutes after the epoch time.
>
> Getting the descending node is more problematic if the orbit is highly
eccentric. In the case of Oscar 7, the eccentricity is small, and it is
close enough to a circular orbit that it is reasonable to assert that the
descending crossing of the equator is very close to 1/2 orbital period
after the ascending node (unless your TLE's are more than a few days old).
>
> Glen
> AA8C
>
>
>
>> On 08/01/2014 03:07 AM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
>> i8CVS posted the directions to calculate EQX and everything else
>> needed to use an OSCARLATOR from Keplerian elements back in 2003.
>>
>> http://www.amsat.org/amsat/archive/amsat-bb/200203/msg00749.html
>>
>> I haven't done any programming in forever, but maybe I'll try to
>> write a short program to automate those calculations at some point
>> (unless someone already has).
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Paul, N8HM
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:51 PM, EMike McCardel <mccardelm@xxxxx.xxx>
wrote:
>>> Does anyone know of a tracking application or program or some other
software or existing source that will still produces or publishes
equatorial crossing data for current satellites?
>>>
>>> EMike
>>>
>>> EMike McCardel, KC8YLD
>>> VP for Educational Relations AMSAT-NA
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 15:57:12 -0400
From: Robert Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID: <89fba561e772d8cf01e4a911c9cc0cf0@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Can some explain to me and others the big deal about cube sats?
> I just dont get it.
Standardization! But the real payoff from standardization is REDUCED RISK
to the launch provider. Instead of having to micromanage every detail of
satellite design so that the launch provider can GURARANTEE the safety to
the main payload ($100,000,000) due to secondary small sats, the CUBESAT
spec defines all the restraints and details. Thus, orders of magnitudes
worth of fussy details necessary to assure absolute safety of the primary
payload do not have to be done for each and every secondary small sat,
just ONE standard.
Then, all the small sats have to do is comply with the spec.
This is why we are starting to see large numbers of cubesats, because now
the LAUNCH providers only have to deal with ONE set of issues (cubesat
spec) and not sixty different payloads, organizations, and 60 different
unique risks.
Bob, WB4APR
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 12:59:26 -0700
From: Bryce Salmi <bstguitarist@xxxxx.xxx>
To: Robert Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID:
<CAN5j0spXydC7wcHPij_Pug5AM68EoQ=CxoTtn7piDbSswzV1hA@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Nailed it
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Robert Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
> > Can some explain to me and others the big deal about cube sats?
> > I just dont get it.
>
> Standardization! But the real payoff from standardization is REDUCED RISK
> to the launch provider. Instead of having to micromanage every detail of
> satellite design so that the launch provider can GURARANTEE the safety to
> the main payload ($100,000,000) due to secondary small sats, the CUBESAT
> spec defines all the restraints and details. Thus, orders of magnitudes
> worth of fussy details necessary to assure absolute safety of the primary
> payload do not have to be done for each and every secondary small sat,
> just ONE standard.
>
> Then, all the small sats have to do is comply with the spec.
>
> This is why we are starting to see large numbers of cubesats, because now
> the LAUNCH providers only have to deal with ONE set of issues (cubesat
> spec) and not sixty different payloads, organizations, and 60 different
> unique risks.
>
> Bob, WB4APR
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:10:25 -0400
From: Gus <gus@xxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID: <53DC3A81.1080105@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
They're cheap.
On 08/01/2014 01:01 PM, John Becker wrote:
> Can some explain to me and others the big deal about cube sats?
> I just dont get it.
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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
>
--
Gus 8P6SM
The Easternmost Isle
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:16:38 -0400
From: Gus <gus@xxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID: <53DC3BF6.4060505@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 08/01/2014 01:24 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
> 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.
Their size and weight limitations restrict the type of antennas they can
deploy, the number of solar panels they can carry, and simply the mass
of silicon they can contain.
Yes, they are cheap and launches (to LEO) are frequent, but their
capabilities are, surely, limited by their physical nature?
--
Gus 8P6SM
The Easternmost Isle
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 18:20:56 -0700
From: Bryce Salmi <bstguitarist@xxxxx.xxx>
To: Gus <gus@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID:
<CAN5j0sqa0fUvUc81zP+pcx50K-WN_5ODy3rs=3U55ydBmKxPEA@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Innovation is often driven out of necessity. I see it everyday at work.
Develop a baseline system that works and then optimize it. You'd be amazed
what you could do with the small of a space to pack electronics into.
Bryce
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Gus <gus@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> On 08/01/2014 01:24 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
> Their size and weight limitations restrict the type of antennas they can
> deploy, the number of solar panels they can carry, and simply the mass of
> silicon they can contain.
>
> Yes, they are cheap and launches (to LEO) are frequent, but their
> capabilities are, surely, limited by their physical nature?
>
>
> --
> Gus 8P6SM
> The Easternmost Isle
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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
>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:31:47 -0400
From: Gus <gus@xxxxx.xxx>
To: bstguitarist@xxxxx.xxx
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID: <53DC3F83.9080306@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Absolutely! Micro-miniaturization!
But some things are difficult to miniaturize -- like a 144 MHz yagi.
On 08/01/2014 09:20 PM, Bryce Salmi wrote:
> Innovation is often driven out of necessity. I see it everyday at
> work. Develop a baseline system that works and then optimize it. You'd
> be amazed what you could do with the small of a space to pack
> electronics into.
>
> Bryce
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Gus <gus@xxxxx.xxx
> <mailto:gus@xxxxx.xxx>> wrote:
>
> On 08/01/2014 01:24 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Their size and weight limitations restrict the type of antennas
> they can deploy, the number of solar panels they can carry, and
> simply the mass of silicon they can contain.
>
> Yes, they are cheap and launches (to LEO) are frequent, but their
> capabilities are, surely, limited by their physical nature?
>
>
> --
> Gus 8P6SM
> The Easternmost Isle
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx <mailto:AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>. 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
>
>
--
Gus 8P6SM
The Easternmost Isle
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 21:39:46 -0400
From: Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@xxxx.xxx>
To: Gus <gus@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID:
<CABzOSOo2FTjXr8tO_5o4tRmKaaJNqqC9d5o3a_szCMFJ1PmL2w@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Gus,
We're not going to see another satellite with a 144 MHz yagi. The
"Mode B HEO" ship has long since sailed unless someone can come up
with the $15-$20 million or more to finish and launch Phase 3E.
However, given how rapidly technology has advanced, I'm not going to
count out a large CubeSat (the specification covers up to 27U) getting
us back to HEO some day, but it will definitely be microwave band
only.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Gus <gus@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Absolutely! Micro-miniaturization!
>
> But some things are difficult to miniaturize -- like a 144 MHz yagi.
>
>
>
> On 08/01/2014 09:20 PM, Bryce Salmi wrote:
>>
>> Innovation is often driven out of necessity. I see it everyday at work.
>> Develop a baseline system that works and then optimize it. You'd be amazed
>> what you could do with the small of a space to pack electronics into.
>>
>> Bryce
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Gus <gus@xxxxx.xxx <mailto:gus@xxxxx.xxx>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/01/2014 01:24 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Their size and weight limitations restrict the type of antennas
>> they can deploy, the number of solar panels they can carry, and
>> simply the mass of silicon they can contain.
>>
>> Yes, they are cheap and launches (to LEO) are frequent, but their
>> capabilities are, surely, limited by their physical nature?
>>
>>
>> -- Gus 8P6SM
>> The Easternmost Isle
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx <mailto:AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>. 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Gus 8P6SM
> The Easternmost Isle
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 12:23:33 +0100
From: M5AKA <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
To: Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@xxxx.xxx>, Gus <gus@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID:
<1406978613.94354.YahooMailNeo@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> We're not going to see another satellite with a 144 MHz yagi.
> The"Mode B HEO" ship has long since sailed
Paul,
The problem is there aren't any global primary Amateur-Satellite microwave
bands below 24 GHz. While our allocations at 29 MHz and 144 MHz may be
primary world-wide the other VHF/UHF/uW bands are not.
We have seen 2400 MHz rendered useless in urban areas due to WiFi with 5840
MHz likely to go the same way. There's a 3400 MHz allocation in Regions 2
and 3 but it's not available in Region 1. 1260 MHz is now being used by the
Galileo GPS system, already a German 23cm repeater has been shut down
because it "interfered with a Galileo GPS receiver". We might expect further
restrictions on 1260 as use of the new system spreads.
http://www.southgatearc.org/articles/galileo.htm
In the UK the top half of the 10 GHz satellite allocation has already been
allocated to high power commercial stations.
Clearly deploying some form of directional 144 MHz antenna on a 3U CubeSat
will be challenging, but not necessarily impossible.
73 Trevor M5AKA
On Saturday, 2 August 2014, 3:16, Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
Gus,
We're not going to see another satellite with a 144 MHz yagi. The
"Mode B HEO" ship has long since sailed unless someone can come up
with the $15-$20 million or more to finish and launch Phase 3E.
However, given how rapidly technology has advanced, I'm not going to
count out a large CubeSat (the specification covers up to 27U) getting
us back to HEO some day, but it will definitely be microwave band
only.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Gus <gus@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Absolutely!? Micro-miniaturization!
>
> But some things are difficult to miniaturize -- like a 144 MHz yagi.
>
>
>
> On 08/01/2014 09:20 PM, Bryce Salmi wrote:
>>
>> Innovation is often driven out of necessity. I see it everyday at work.
>> Develop a baseline system that works and then optimize it. You'd be amazed
>> what you could do with the small of a space to pack electronics into.
>>
>> Bryce
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Gus <gus@xxxxx.xxx <mailto:gus@xxxxx.xxx>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>? ? On 08/01/2014 01:24 PM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
>>
>>? ? ? ? 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.
>>
>>? ? Their size and weight limitations restrict the type of antennas
>>? ? they can deploy, the number of solar panels they can carry, and
>>? ? simply the mass of silicon they can contain.
>>
>>? ? Yes, they are cheap and launches (to LEO) are frequent, but their
>>? ? capabilities are, surely, limited by their physical nature?
>>
>>
>>? ? --? ? Gus 8P6SM
>>? ? The Easternmost Isle
>>
>>? ? _______________________________________________
>>? ? Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx <mailto:AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>. 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Gus 8P6SM
> The Easternmost Isle
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 9, Issue 267
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
