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'" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] wrote: >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Sent via [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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
