SuitSat and ISS SSTV

[M5AKA]

The latest information from Frank KA3HDO on SuitSat and SSTV on the International Space Station.

73 Trevor M5AKA
----
Suitsat One Step Closer to Deployment/SSTV Equipment on-board ISS

All,

On Thursday September 8 at 13:08 UTC, Progress 19P lifted off from the
Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. #Included in the 2.5 tons of fuel, food
and supplies are two Amateur Radio on the International Space Station
(ARISS) systems---the Suitsat amateur radio hardware and the Slow Scan
Television (SSTV) hardware and software. #The successful docking of
Progress to ISS on September 10 culminates the successful design,
development, certification and delivery of these two ARISS Projects. #The
ISS Expedition 11 crew will unpack this equipment, making it available for
installation, use and deployment by the Expedition 12 crew.

The Suitsat amateur radio system, coupled with a school artwork project, is
planned to be installed in an outdated Russian Orlon spacesuit. #It will
then be deployed from the ISS during an Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA, or
spacewalk). #This is expected to occur in the December timeframe by the
Expedition 12 crew. #The Suitsat amateur radio system will beam down
special messages and an SSTV image from within the Orlon space suit as it
floats in space. #Suitsat radio system will allow hams and students to
track the suit and decode special international messages, space suit
telemetry, and a pre-programmed Slow Scan TV image through its
specially-built digital voice messaging system and amateur radio
transmitter. #As built, Suitsat will be a transmit-only capability that
will run on the space suit's battery power.

As part of the Suitsat project, a CD with hundreds of school pictures,
artwork, poems, and student signatures is included. #Two identical CDs were
flown, one will go in the suit and the other will be for the crew to
review. #Using the crew CD, we hope to downlink these images using the SSTV
system that will be located inside the Service Module once it is
operational. #There are approximately 300 items on the CD. #These are from
all over the world (Japan/Asia, Europe, Russia, Canada, US, South America
and Africa). #Several NASA Explorer Schools participated as well as
numerous ESA and Russian Space Agency-sponsored schools.

The idea for Suitsat was first conceived by the ARISS-Russia team, led by
Sergey Samburov, RV3DR, and was extensively discussed at the joint AMSAT
Symposium/ARISS International Partner meeting in October 2004. #The
project, also called Radioskaf or Radio Sputnik in Russia, is being led by
project manager A. P. Alexandrov and Deputy Project Manager A. Poleshuk
from RSC Energia, located in Korolev (Moscow area) Russia. # On the US
side, the hardware project development was led by AMSAT member Lou McFadin,
W5DID.

Since October 2004 the Suitsat design concept matured and evolved due to
the challenging development time constraints. #In a very short timeframe,
the ARISS international team designed built and tested a simple, yet fully
featured system that we hope will inspire hams and students around the world.

The SSTV system will be installed inside the Service module as an integral
part of the ARISS ham radio system. #It will transmit and receive (JPG)
still images from the International Space Station in a format called Slow
Scan TV (SSTV). #When fully operational, the SSTV system is capable of
sending up to 480 images per day from ISS. # #It will also be able to
receive images from amateur radio stations on Earth. #This system will
utilize the already installed Kenwood D-700 radio and the ARISS antennas
mounted on the Service Module. #The SSTV equipment flown on Progress 19P
includes the SpaceCam software, a radio/computer interface module, and data
cables. #The dedicated laptop for SSTV operations will be launched on a
subsequent Progress vehicle.

Over the course of the past several months, the Suitsat and SSTV system
passed the stringent NASA and Energia safety certification process and were
deemed ready for flight--clearing the way for the incorporation into the
Progress 19P vehicle. #More information on SSTV and Suitsat will be
provided as we get closer to installation and deployment .

On behalf of the ARISS International team, I want to congratulate the
Suitsat hardware development team and the SSTV development team on a job
well done. #We look forward to future operation of these systems on ISS,
inspiring the next generation of space explorers.

Congratulations!!!!!

Frank H. Bauer, KA3HDO
ARISS International Chairman
AMSAT V.P. for Human Spaceflight Programs
NASA ARISS Program Manager

----------------------------------------
ARISS is an international educational outreach program partnering the ISS
space agency partners--NASA, RSA, ESA, JAXA, and CSA, with volunteers from
the AMSAT and IARU (International Amateur Radio Union) organizations from
participating countries. ARISS offers an inspirational opportunity for
students to experience the excitement of Amateur Radio by talking directly
with crewmembers on-board the International Space Station. Teachers,
parents and communities see, first hand, how Amateur Radio and crewmembers
on ISS can energize youngsters' interest in science, mathematics,
technology, and learning. Further information on the ARISS program is
available on the website http://www.rac.ca/ariss
----

AMSAT-UK produce a newsletter "Oscar News" full of satellite information.
For membership details contact the secretary Jim Heck G3WGM
Tel: +44 (0)1258 453959
E-mail: g3wgm@amsat.org
Website: http://www.uk.amsat.org/
Online Satellite Pass Predictions:
http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/tools/predict/
---------------
Daily Amateur Radio RSS News Service: http://www.southgatearc.org/
Add News Service to your Website: http://www.southgatearc.org/rss/index.htm
Add News Service to your PC: http://www.southgatearc.org/rss/newsreader.htm
Upload Your News Items: http://www.southgatearc.org/news/your_news.htm
---------------

[aa1mn]

Considering that ISS is a $5 Billion cost overrun project with a long list of breakdowns, burnups and bustouts SSTV is the least of its worrys.

Hmm, to show I'm not the only one who finds ISS's track record more than wanting the following is reprinted here:

An International Space Scrap-yard

evac and de-orbit coming soon
by Jeffrey F. Bell
Honolulu HI (SPX) Jul 12, 2004
It's time to face the facts about the International Space Station. The ISS is deteriorating so rapidly that there is an excellent chance that it will die before the Space Shuttle is back in service.
Of course the Shuttle RTF date constantly shifts further into the future as NASA engineers continue to bungle the many projects undertaken to meet the CAIB mandates for improved safety. It seems that the Shuttle program no longer has the skills needed even to design a simple rigid extension boom for the Canadarm. And the capabilities of the RCC repair kit seem to get smaller every month.

But even if one believes the mid-2005 date for the resumption of "normal" Shuttle supply flights to the ISS, it becomes increasingly hard to believe that the Station will still be manned at that time, or even stable enough to dock with. People inside the project have been telling me that they expect the crew evacuation to happen within one year. I didn't really believe them until I read a recent piece of investigative journalism by Florida Today. It is clear from the ISS program's own internal documents that the ISS can't be kept alive by Soyuz/Progress during a prolonged Shuttle stand-down.

The basic problem is that major components on the ISS continue to fail at a surprising rate. The Station was designed for a useful life of ten years after completion, so all its components should have been designed to last at least that long. But many key systems are breaking down after only a few years in orbit. Examples include:


+ the 600-lb momentum wheels that control the station's attitude and their control electronics,
+ the spacesuits that are needed to repair the gyros and other external components,
+ the power torque wrenches used to bolt together station components,
+ the treadmill that keeps the crew's muscles and bones from deteriorating too much,
+ the main oxygen generator,
+ the air quality sensors that monitor dangerous contaminants in the ISS atmosphere.
+ the 4 million lines of computer software that has at least 1,000 known bugs
I cannot understand why these vital components are all failing. The ISS was originally designed to have a useful lifetime of 10 years after assembly was completed. Even with the long delays in assembly, most elements of the ISS have been in space less than 5 years. Clearly, a lot of stuff is not meeting specifications.

This situation is even more inexplicable when you consider the excellent record of similar components on unmanned spacecraft. Many satellites have momentum wheels that run continuously to provide fine attitude control, but we never hear of them wearing out (except in the Hubble Space Telescope which was also designed to be maintained by Shuttle). Most have thrusters using hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, and they never suffer from the leaks and corrosion that require the Shuttle's thruster modules to be frequently pulled out for repair. And many unmanned spacecraft have been in space much longer than ISS. Cassini/Huygens has been in flight about as long as the first ISS modules, but it is not riddled with similar failures.

I would like to see a detailed engineering explanation of why all these systems on ISS are failing. The possible reasons are all pretty depressing:

A) we don't know how to design gyros, spacesuits, treadmills, air quality sensors etc. that will work reliably for more than 2-3 years;

B) the ISS engineers got lazy with all that potential up- and down-cargo provided by Shuttle/MPLS, and didn't try for reliability;

C) they were under secret orders to make ISS dependent on frequent Shuttle supply missions so that Shuttle flights could be justified after the ISS was completed.

If A) is true, clearly we have no chance of maintaining a manned base on the Moon or Mars where resupply will be less frequent and more expensive than to ISS. If B) and/or C) are the correct explanation; we cannot trust the current staff at NASA to carry out Plan Bush in a timely and cost-effective manner.

A related issue is that too many of these unreliable components are located on the outside of the ISS, where spacewalks are needed for repair or replacement. The electronic modules that control the gyros are an excellent example of this. There's no reason they can't be located inside the pressure hull. Station EVAs were always dangerous because NASA had waived the usual ban on sharp or hot objects on manned spacecraft which could rip or melt holes in the suits. The last three spacewalk attempts on ISS have revealed that the spacesuits on board are deteriorating along with everything else. The caretaker crew had to mix-and-match elements of several suits to produce two that were safe to use.

And many of these components are so large and so heavy that replacements cannot be lifted in Progress or the European ATV vehicle. They can only be ferried up by the Italian-made logistics modules in the Shuttle cargo bay. Down-cargo limitations are even more severe. It was very difficult to find room in a Soyuz return module for a coffee-can-sized atmospheric sampling device that needed to be returned for a contamination check.

And there is the disquieting issue of that loud crunching sound. The first time this occurred, I used it as a hook for a column on the rising menace of orbital debris. But now that the Mystery Sound has been heard at least twice at the same point in the ISS, it is clear that is caused by some defect in some ISS mechanism. This doesn't make the debris problem any less threatening to ISS and future orbital operations (as some ill-informed readers think), but it does indicate that some system on ISS may be tearing itself apart. Extensive investigations have not identified the source of the noise -- so NASA in its usual way assumes that it is something non-vital like a ventilation fan.

The official estimate is that all these accumulating problems add up to a %6/yr chance of catastrophic failure on ISS with a crew on board -- and an incredible %50/yr chance without a crew. These estimates are probably too low, like most NASA risk estimates.

So in the near future, NASA will have to face two difficult decisions: A) to withdraw the crew from ISS (or not replace one when its 6-month deployment ends); B) to execute a controlled deorbit of the 216-ton station into a remote ocean before it falls on a populated area.

The first decision will be very difficult to make, because the station is not designed for extended unmanned operations. Without a crew, there is no way to repair any further failures that may occur. There will be strong pressure to keep the ISS manned long beyond the point at which it becomes dangerous. (Some space medics think this point has already been reached.)

The second decision will be even more difficult, since it will be the final scrapping of a very expensive and highly touted project. I don't see that decision being made very quickly, given that all the International Partners will have to be consulted first. Somebody needs to give the order when there is still reliable communications, electric power, attitude control, and enough fuel for the retro burn. If the deorbit decision is delayed too long, it becomes impossible and we are stuck with a huge pile of space junk slowly spiraling down to an uncontrolled reentry that might scatter dangerous amounts of debris over a populated area. It will be very tempting to leave ISS tumbling in orbit and plan some grandiose rescue&repair mission, like the absurd robot repairman NASA has proposed for Hubble. There are even a few precedents they could cite (Skylab repair and a Salyut that was dead and reactivated). I think this approach is likely to fail because the ISS is just too huge and complicated to fix once it gets out of control. What are the policy implications of an ISS failure? Many people are saying that Shuttle RTF and Station completion are competency tests for NASA -- i.e. if they can't do those things then either Plan Bush will be killed or a new agency created to run it.

Shuttle and ISS are so fundamentally wrong in their basic concept and design that even the best engineers in the world couldn't save those programs -- and clearly the best engineers in the world no longer work for NASA. If RTF and ISS are really seen by the Administration as basic competency tests, then NASA is sure to flunk them.

On the other hand, the gradual collapse of the ISS disproves the notion that "ISS is teaching us how to operate in space." In fact, ISS is an example of how not to operate in space. The longer we stick with this pointless project, the more bad habits are learned by the various national space agencies involved with it. The sooner it is gone, the sooner we can learn the right way to explore space.

Jeffrey F. Bell is Adjunct Professor of Planetology at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. All opinions expressed in this article are his own and not those of the University.

[W9GRN]

Great article Trevor! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Will be looking into the links that you have provided to learn more about this.

[AB9FH]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Sep. 15 2005,01:56)]Considering that ISS is a $5 Billion cost overrun project with a long list of breakdowns, burnups and bustouts SSTV is the least of its worrys.

Hmm, to show I'm not the only one who finds ISS's track record more than wanting the following is reprinted here:

An International Space Scrap-yard

evac and de-orbit coming soon
by Jeffrey F. Bell
Honolulu HI (SPX) Jul 12, 2004
It's time to face the facts about the International Space Station. The ISS is deteriorating so rapidly that there is an excellent chance that it will die before the Space Shuttle is back in service.
<snip>

Did you notice, by any chance, the fact that these dire predictions were made more than a year ago and failed to come true? I'm the last person to point to the ISS as a perfect example of a project, but this professor from Hawaii looks pretty silly right about now. Along with anyone who quotes him.

[nf0a]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Sep. 15 2005,07:56)]Considering that ISS is a $5 Billion cost overrun project with a long list of breakdowns, burnups and bustouts SSTV is the least of its worrys.

Hmm, to show I'm not the only one who finds ISS's track record more than wanting the following is reprinted here:

An International Space Scrap-yard

evac and de-orbit coming soon
by Jeffrey F. Bell
Honolulu HI (SPX) Jul 12, 2004
It's time to face the facts about the International Space Station. The ISS is deteriorating so rapidly that there is an excellent chance that it will die before the Space Shuttle is back in service.
Of course the Shuttle RTF date constantly shifts further into the future as NASA engineers continue to bungle the many projects undertaken to meet the CAIB mandates for improved safety. It seems that the Shuttle program no longer has the skills needed even to design a simple rigid extension boom for the Canadarm. And the capabilities of the RCC repair kit seem to get smaller every month.

But even if one believes the mid-2005 date for the resumption of "normal" Shuttle supply flights to the ISS, it becomes increasingly hard to believe that the Station will still be manned at that time, or even stable enough to dock with. People inside the project have been telling me that they expect the crew evacuation to happen within one year. I didn't really believe them until I read a recent piece of investigative journalism by Florida Today. It is clear from the ISS program's own internal documents that the ISS can't be kept alive by Soyuz/Progress during a prolonged Shuttle stand-down.

The basic problem is that major components on the ISS continue to fail at a surprising rate. The Station was designed for a useful life of ten years after completion, so all its components should have been designed to last at least that long. But many key systems are breaking down after only a few years in orbit. Examples include:


+ the 600-lb momentum wheels that control the station's attitude and their control electronics,
+ the spacesuits that are needed to repair the gyros and other external components,
+ the power torque wrenches used to bolt together station components,
+ the treadmill that keeps the crew's muscles and bones from deteriorating too much,
+ the main oxygen generator,
+ the air quality sensors that monitor dangerous contaminants in the ISS atmosphere.
+ the 4 million lines of computer software that has at least 1,000 known bugs
I cannot understand why these vital components are all failing. The ISS was originally designed to have a useful lifetime of 10 years after assembly was completed. Even with the long delays in assembly, most elements of the ISS have been in space less than 5 years. Clearly, a lot of stuff is not meeting specifications.

This situation is even more inexplicable when you consider the excellent record of similar components on unmanned spacecraft. Many satellites have momentum wheels that run continuously to provide fine attitude control, but we never hear of them wearing out (except in the Hubble Space Telescope which was also designed to be maintained by Shuttle). Most have thrusters using hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, and they never suffer from the leaks and corrosion that require the Shuttle's thruster modules to be frequently pulled out for repair. And many unmanned spacecraft have been in space much longer than ISS. Cassini/Huygens has been in flight about as long as the first ISS modules, but it is not riddled with similar failures.

I would like to see a detailed engineering explanation of why all these systems on ISS are failing. The possible reasons are all pretty depressing:

A) we don't know how to design gyros, spacesuits, treadmills, air quality sensors etc. that will work reliably for more than 2-3 years;

B) the ISS engineers got lazy with all that potential up- and down-cargo provided by Shuttle/MPLS, and didn't try for reliability;

C) they were under secret orders to make ISS dependent on frequent Shuttle supply missions so that Shuttle flights could be justified after the ISS was completed.

If A) is true, clearly we have no chance of maintaining a manned base on the Moon or Mars where resupply will be less frequent and more expensive than to ISS. If B) and/or C) are the correct explanation; we cannot trust the current staff at NASA to carry out Plan Bush in a timely and cost-effective manner.

A related issue is that too many of these unreliable components are located on the outside of the ISS, where spacewalks are needed for repair or replacement. The electronic modules that control the gyros are an excellent example of this. There's no reason they can't be located inside the pressure hull. Station EVAs were always dangerous because NASA had waived the usual ban on sharp or hot objects on manned spacecraft which could rip or melt holes in the suits. The last three spacewalk attempts on ISS have revealed that the spacesuits on board are deteriorating along with everything else. The caretaker crew had to mix-and-match elements of several suits to produce two that were safe to use.

And many of these components are so large and so heavy that replacements cannot be lifted in Progress or the European ATV vehicle. They can only be ferried up by the Italian-made logistics modules in the Shuttle cargo bay. Down-cargo limitations are even more severe. It was very difficult to find room in a Soyuz return module for a coffee-can-sized atmospheric sampling device that needed to be returned for a contamination check.

And there is the disquieting issue of that loud crunching sound. The first time this occurred, I used it as a hook for a column on the rising menace of orbital debris. But now that the Mystery Sound has been heard at least twice at the same point in the ISS, it is clear that is caused by some defect in some ISS mechanism. This doesn't make the debris problem any less threatening to ISS and future orbital operations (as some ill-informed readers think), but it does indicate that some system on ISS may be tearing itself apart. Extensive investigations have not identified the source of the noise -- so NASA in its usual way assumes that it is something non-vital like a ventilation fan.

The official estimate is that all these accumulating problems add up to a %6/yr chance of catastrophic failure on ISS with a crew on board -- and an incredible %50/yr chance without a crew. These estimates are probably too low, like most NASA risk estimates.

So in the near future, NASA will have to face two difficult decisions: A) to withdraw the crew from ISS (or not replace one when its 6-month deployment ends); B) to execute a controlled deorbit of the 216-ton station into a remote ocean before it falls on a populated area.

The first decision will be very difficult to make, because the station is not designed for extended unmanned operations. Without a crew, there is no way to repair any further failures that may occur. There will be strong pressure to keep the ISS manned long beyond the point at which it becomes dangerous. (Some space medics think this point has already been reached.)

The second decision will be even more difficult, since it will be the final scrapping of a very expensive and highly touted project. I don't see that decision being made very quickly, given that all the International Partners will have to be consulted first. Somebody needs to give the order when there is still reliable communications, electric power, attitude control, and enough fuel for the retro burn. If the deorbit decision is delayed too long, it becomes impossible and we are stuck with a huge pile of space junk slowly spiraling down to an uncontrolled reentry that might scatter dangerous amounts of debris over a populated area. It will be very tempting to leave ISS tumbling in orbit and plan some grandiose rescue&repair mission, like the absurd robot repairman NASA has proposed for Hubble. There are even a few precedents they could cite (Skylab repair and a Salyut that was dead and reactivated). I think this approach is likely to fail because the ISS is just too huge and complicated to fix once it gets out of control. What are the policy implications of an ISS failure? Many people are saying that Shuttle RTF and Station completion are competency tests for NASA -- i.e. if they can't do those things then either Plan Bush will be killed or a new agency created to run it.

Shuttle and ISS are so fundamentally wrong in their basic concept and design that even the best engineers in the world couldn't save those programs -- and clearly the best engineers in the world no longer work for NASA. If RTF and ISS are really seen by the Administration as basic competency tests, then NASA is sure to flunk them.

On the other hand, the gradual collapse of the ISS disproves the notion that "ISS is teaching us how to operate in space." In fact, ISS is an example of how not to operate in space. The longer we stick with this pointless project, the more bad habits are learned by the various national space agencies involved with it. The sooner it is gone, the sooner we can learn the right way to explore space.

Jeffrey F. Bell is Adjunct Professor of Planetology at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. All opinions expressed in this article are his own and not those of the University.
In full agreement...

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]Did you notice, by any chance, the fact that these dire predictions were made more than a year ago and failed to come true?

Yes, I realize the article is a year old. Do you realize that the problems in the article still persist?

Do you also realize that ISS is not going to be completed under its initial construction plan because of this?

Do you realize as well that many other problems have cropped up since the article was written?

Do you realize what that insisting that a failure like ISS is a success does not make it a success?

I once was very enthusiastic about the construction of ISS but there comes a time to admit that a bad idea is a bad idea ... that time came a long time ago with ISS.

Chuck, AA1MN

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Sep. 14 2005,14:43)]Quote[/b] ]Did you notice, by any chance, the fact that these dire predictions were made more than a year ago and failed to come true?

Yes, I realize the article is a year old. #Do you realize that the problems in the article still persist?

Do you also realize that ISS is not going to be completed under its initial construction plan because of this? #

Do you realize as well that many other problems have cropped up since the article was written?

Do you realize what that insisting that a failure like ISS is a success does not make it a success?

I once was very enthusiastic about the construction of ISS but there comes a time to admit that a bad idea is a bad idea ... that time came a long time ago with ISS.

Chuck, AA1MN
Chuck:

The government does strange things. No argument there.

I once witnessed a multi-million dollar demolition of a rather large mega-ton-sized electromagnet used for fusion experiments that cost the taxpayers several billion.

The stewards of this insane destruction even had the audacity to invite the former associate director who helped build and manage it to come back from retirement to be present on the day that they demolished the building and began cutting it up and removing it.

I was at least pleased to see the man essentially flip them off by refusing to show up.

I can't imagine how he must have felt. His baby. And, they wanted him to come back to witness and endorse its destruction and horrible waste of taxpayer resources.

I did get to have, once, a close up view of the Hubble Space Telescope. Just before its transportation to the Cape. As was explained to me, it was designed to be maintained by the Shuttles. Little did I know, of course, that I was looking at a flawed mirror. Oh, well, at least they were able to fix it. It was supposed to be barged through the Panama Canal and under some of my HV transmission lines, but because of Manuel Noriega, they flew it to the Cape on a C-5A. Could you imagine Manuel Noriega seizing that piece of US property?

Lee

[N8QWS]

There seems no end to the wastefullness of our government, or maby it's a wellfare program for highly educated engineers. All the aerospace subcontractors work like the road crews on a time and materials basis. So the longer it takes and the more they waste the more they make. Just look at the huge fuel tank that they get into low orbit then release to burn up. Each tank is a huge shell with a volume that rivals the entire volume of the combined station modules. A smart and frugile engineer would have figured out how to incorporate them into the construction of the station. Somehow they manage to upcharge things untill it costs 10 times what it should and make things 1/4 the expected quality.
# #The space station has been forced to use the limited resources that have been put into orbit far harder and for longer duty cycles than were speced out at the start. This is due to the construction delays caused by 2 orbiter catastrophic failures along with several glitches in a very overly complex and outdated shuttle system. All brought about by way to many NASA officials, System subcontractors and politicians with a finger in the tax dollar honey pot.
# #We will achieve the vision of exploration in space someday in the same manner that the oceans and mountains have been explored. By common men with the desire to see what is over the next horizon not the military or government. That day is comming, a sub orbital challenge was met! Next will be an amateur orbit then the Moon , Mars and beyond for pennies on the dollar that our buerocrocy has spent.

# #Please excuse any misspellings, spellcheck on my PC is down.
Ray # #N8QWS

[N8QWS]

Suitsat ??
All the stuff that they could be doing and they are tossing high tech trash into space. HMMM, guess they are tired of doing the same human endurance studies over and over and over. Want to simulate some gravity, wear a chainmail suit and have a electromagnet in the floor, turn it on and do some jumping jacks.
Ray N8QWS

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]The government does strange things. No argument there.

I once witnessed a multi-million dollar demolition of a rather large mega-ton-sized electromagnet used for fusion experiments that cost the taxpayers several billion.

The stewards of this insane destruction even had the audacity to invite the former associate director who helped build and manage it to come back from retirement to be present on the day that they demolished the building and began cutting it up and removing it.

I was at least pleased to see the man essentially flip them off by refusing to show up.

I can't imagine how he must have felt. His baby. And, they wanted him to come back to witness and endorse its destruction and horrible waste of taxpayer resources.

I did get to have, once, a close up view of the Hubble Space Telescope. Just before its transportation to the Cape. As was explained to me, it was designed to be maintained by the Shuttles. Little did I know, of course, that I was looking at a flawed mirror. Oh, well, at least they were able to fix it. It was supposed to be barged through the Panama Canal and under some of my HV transmission lines, but because of Manuel Noriega, they flew it to the Cape on a C-5A. Could you imagine Manuel Noriega seizing that piece of US property?



Just when I think I've heard it all this comes along.

Well, Lee, it's like I've always said, "People are the greatest source of free entertainment this universe has to offer."

Of course, I fully realize I add to the above equation quite frequently myself.

Chuck, AA1MN

[kn6ro]

Not to be difficult, but what, other than the original post, does this discussion have to do with Amateur Radio?

73 de KN6RO

[M5AKA]

SuitSat will shortly be deployed from the International Space Station (ISS). A
video recorded earlier in the year by Frank Bauer, KA3HDO and Mark Steiner,
K3MS explaining what SuitSat is and what it will do can be seen at

http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/information/videoNews.php

AMSAT-UK produce a newsletter "Oscar News" which is full of satellite
information. For membership details contact the secretary Jim Heck G3WGM
Tel: +44 (0)1258 453959
E-mail: g3wgm@amsat.org
Website: http://www.uk.amsat.org/
Online Satellite Pass Predictions:
http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/tools/predict/

73 Trevor M5AKA
---------------
Daily Amateur Radio RSS News Service: http://www.southgatearc.org/
Add News Service to your Website: http://www.southgatearc.org/rss/index.htm
Add News Service to your PC: http://www.southgatearc.org/rss/newsreader.htm
Upload Your News Items: http://www.southgatearc.org/news/your_news.htm
---------------