Huston We Have A Problem! - SuitSat is Dead [Archive]

aa1mn

02-07-2006, 09:07 PM

Quote[/b] ]Hey guys, why are you being so negative?

Consider this a lesson learned: We now know that we should work on regulating the temperature inside the suit next time we try something like this.

I can almost guarantee that those out there that are criticizing the failure of this experiment and complaining about a waste of tax dollars would be celebrating if the experiment HAD succeded.

So don't gripe about it. This is just one failure-maybe next time we will succeed

What's there to be positive about such a big disappointment that everything associated with ISS has turned out to be?

You do realize that there has been an air leak or two, batteries that were overcharged, strange banging noises, and that due to it going overbudget and continued delays that it's never going to have all of the modules attached that it had initially intended to?

Are also aware that no science projects have really been completed on the ISS as was originally expected mainly due the frequent, and often potentially dangerous, repairs required to keep this junk heap afloat?

And now this ... ISS should stand for Infernal Scow Ship, not International Space Station.

So what's positive to say? Yeah, I'd rather have the tax dollars tossed away on this back in my bank account, thank you very much.

Chuck, AA1MN

w6em

02-07-2006, 09:09 PM

Most important Lesson Learned: Don't trust Russian spacesuits!!! Just kidding, I think.

Then again, somebody said that this was a slightly used spacesuit. If so, I hope the former human occupant didn't suffer the same fate as did the batteries.

If spacesuits don't have heaters, they must have great insulation. I would think someone would have considered how to maintain a reasonable internal temperature.

Lee

aa1mn

02-07-2006, 09:09 PM

Quote[/b] ], for one, get tired of all the negitivity. Does anyone think that the first airplane built was a success? How about the first automobile? The first brain surgery, maybe? Stop complaining, it was fun and a lesson or lessons have been learned.

Were tax dollars, my tax dollars in particular, used to fund these failures?

Chuck, AA1MN

aa1mn

02-07-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote[/b] ]Quote (ki4iti @ Feb. 07 2006,12:55)
Quote
Consider this a lesson learned: We now know that we should work on regulating the temperature inside the suit next time we try something like this.

That should have been a no-brainer from the start. The folks who fly high-altitude balloon experiments even know that you have to choose batteries that will stand up to extreme cold. There's no excuse for people with access to a space platform not to have considered this.

That said, it may have simply been something they couldn't do anything about within the constraints of the project. I'm disappointed, but I'm not going to get overly upset about it.

Josh KI4ITI

Exactly--

There are plenty of hams with both experience and practical know-how. The Space Cadets need to be reeled in.

Good Lord, Chip, do you realize the consequences of what you're suggesting here?

I mean, if reasonable and responsible people were actually put in charege of NASA -- or any government agency for that matter -- there would be far less waste and mismanagement wouldn't there?

Why, if that happened just think of the thousands of individuals wasting space in created jobs through nepotism who would loose their jobs?

Oh, the humanity ...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Chuck, AA1MN

W4KVW

02-07-2006, 09:19 PM

NOT enough room for all of the LITTER here on EARTH so lets throw our junk away in outer space!They should be sent back out to FIND the junk suit & bring it back or be fined for littering! ANOTHER waste of money were we have NO business being! MILLIONS of EARTHLINGS starving on THIS planet but it's MORE important that we go beyond it & then expect eveyone to get upset when people DIE trying to get into & returning from outer space.Lets pour BILLIONS & BILLIONS into the space program so ALL that are unhappy here can LEAVE us whom are VERY happy right here & make more room for larger antenna farms!I'm all for it!Get 'r done

God bless,
Clayton
KE4KVW

What PLANET is HUSTON on or even what SOLAR SYSTEM is it in?????????????????????????

KI4JUD

02-07-2006, 09:54 PM

I can recieve the transmisions; please check your antenna and radio before griping about the TX batteries. #Last transmission I recieved was at 1500z Feb 7, 2006. #Signal: 1x2

K4JF

02-07-2006, 10:58 PM

Lighten up, people. It was an experiment. A very inexpensive experiment, at that. It is a failure ONLY if we did not learn anything from it. And we did.

w1yw

02-07-2006, 11:00 PM

Suitsat is slowly spiralling in with a decaying orbit. It is likely that the feeble signal will become marginal just before it enters the atmosphere: the line of site distance will go from 200+ miles down to about 20 + miles before it is likely to literally die.

However, the dwell time will get much shorter as this happens.

Nonetheless, the 'project ' is a failure. It should have been 'full quieting' with a handi talky on most occasions until now..

KB1LQC

02-07-2006, 11:40 PM

The Chelmsford High School Amateur radio Club loved it, member have been listening to it. Some dont hear it, some do (kinda like HF, its a CHALLENGE!). all in all I think it was a complete success, we got something into space, people can hear it, mabye not that well But they CAN hear it. This was a learning experience and will promote amateur radio (I've talked to a few teachers and student about this and theyve been fairly enthusiastic about the project. Can't wait until next time!

Thanks es 73's
Bryce Salmi
KB1LQC

n8ary

02-08-2006, 12:28 AM

It sounds like they needed to get rid of some useless junk and decided to make it into a satellite experiment. #What's wrong with that? #Should they have sent the Space Shuttle up there on a special mission to take out the trash? #Now THAT would have been a waste.

Additionally, they didn't exactly have access to a Radio Shack around the corner or a warehouse full of NASA electronic equipment while building SuitSat.

If it were intended to be a REAL satellite, I am sure new equipment would have been used and it would have worked much better. #Maybe it would have been built on the ground and transported to the ISS.

I think it was pretty neat and it even got Amateur Radio a little attention. #Folks at work were coming to me with news articles and all kinds of questions about it. If we bi+ch about this experiment enough, maybe they'll take the amateur radio equipment right out of the station. How would that "suit" you?

By the way, maybe someone was letting Angelica Huston know about the problem and not Houston, TX.

Let me know when we get a repeater installed on the moon.

Andrew N8ARY

K1ATV

02-08-2006, 01:43 AM

Go to aj3u.com/blog to hear recordings from SuitSat1 and a SSTV picture or two.

Go to suitsat.org for the latest position and reported "sightings."

Bil
K1ATV
Mesa AZ
Hams should be seen as well as heard.

KB3MTV

02-08-2006, 01:49 AM

Bye Bye SuitSat! You died a nobel death in the name of radio. But it was a good lesson. And who knows, we could try again but with better tempature controllers...... and how about using solar energy for power????

kc0jya

02-08-2006, 03:10 AM

through all of the negative postings concerning the "suit sat" that I have read, I have one thing to say. "If it would have worked, you would be looking at the south side of a northbound cow!" Don't knock anything till it's dead

ky5u

02-08-2006, 03:17 AM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 07 2006,16:00)]Suitsat is slowly spiralling in with a decaying orbit. It is likely that the feeble signal will become marginal just before it enters the atmosphere: the line of site distance will go from 200+ miles down to about 20 + miles before it is likely to literally die.

However, the dwell time will get much shorter as this happens.

Nonetheless, the 'project ' is a failure. It should have been 'full quieting' with a handi talky on most occasions until now..
Hey, I was listening for it too. But, I have to agree with Chip (God forbid). This thing is washed up like a cheap suit. Must have used ICOM equipment. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

KC0TPI

02-08-2006, 05:58 AM

Quote[/b] (n2vww @ Feb. 07 2006,13:53)]I, for one, get tired of all the negitivity. Does anyone think that the first airplane built was a success? How about the first automobile? The first brain surgery, maybe? Stop complaining, it was fun and a lesson or lessons have been learned.

Gary n2vww
exactly kinda like thomas eddison he found over 1,000 ways not to make a lightbulb but it took him only once to find out the right way so maybe we learn from our/their mistakes http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

N3CRT

02-08-2006, 11:28 AM

PLEASE DELETE THIS WHOLE THREAD. The Media has to retract incorrect postings, or should. Why shouldnt qrz.com?

KB8SPC

02-08-2006, 12:26 PM

Quote[/b] (KC0TPI @ Feb. 07 2006,22:58)]Quote[/b] (n2vww @ Feb. 07 2006,13:53)]I, for one, get tired of all the negitivity. Does anyone think that the first airplane built was a success? How about the first automobile? The first brain surgery, maybe? Stop complaining, it was fun and a lesson or lessons have been learned.

Gary n2vww
exactly kinda like thomas eddison he found over 1,000 ways not to make a lightbulb but it took him only once to find out the right way so maybe we learn from our/their mistakes http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
I agree! Didn't the first CW key have problems? And the first ham radio wasn't perfect?! Lord knows the first computer wasn't perfect!! With everything, there is bound to be lessons learned. We will know about this issue the NEXT time we do this.

This is my personal opinion only, I feel this was a great first step leading to the second.

'73
Jude
KB8SPC

KI4NGN

02-08-2006, 12:41 PM

I posted a quote from ARRL in another thread: The batteries were mentioned in an article about this project, and it was stated that the batteries are stored in an external compartment during normal use of the suit, not within the environment maintained by a functioning suit. I don't doubt that there were battery problems, but it is not that they "froze" and no one thought of that. Remember, just about everything involved in making this satellite was going to be discarded anyway. I suspect (but could be wrong) that they did not use a new battery to begin with since that would be a relatively expensive station resource to just discard.

w1yw

02-08-2006, 01:11 PM

Nonetheless, it was poorly executed--which means it was poorly thought out.

On 29 Jan I predicted the batteries would fail: "within a few hours". You certainly didn't need a Ph.D. to figure it out. And being ticked off that someone told the truth,and then having some hams #project #it as 'negativity' makes the amateur radio service look like a group of pollyanna space cadets, IMO.

Please get GROUNDED in reality people!

This notion that doing 'experiments' will help you iterate to success is grand--but utterly stupid with respect to Suitsat. Read Ron's (AI4CB) trenchant point on Sputnik vs Suitsat.

--------------------------

"It's only a switch"--Dr. Nathan Cohen

w1yw

02-08-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote[/b] (KC0TPI @ Feb. 07 2006,22:58)]Quote[/b] (n2vww @ Feb. 07 2006,13:53)]I, for one, get tired of all the negitivity. Does anyone think that the first airplane built was a success? How about the first automobile? The first brain surgery, maybe? Stop complaining, it was fun and a lesson or lessons have been learned.

Gary n2vww
exactly kinda like thomas eddison he found over 1,000 ways not to make a lightbulb but it took him only once to find out the right way so maybe we learn from our/their mistakes http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
I get tired of the poor spelling....

And learning from mistakes is fine, but being able to anticipate obvious ones, after 49 years in space, is a requirement of intelligence.

Or are we now supposed to diss intelligence here ALSO?

W4KTL

02-08-2006, 01:35 PM

Come on naysayers. They experimented, it didn't work out as planned (kind of like antennas most of us have built or projects that didn't work out as planned either).
Get over it and move on.

ac7k

02-08-2006, 02:40 PM

I was excited to learn about SuitSat... so it failed... but I wonder how many people became interested in Amateur Radio because of this?? The story was on the mainstream press. So even if it was a failure... it was a success.

Eric

ky5u

02-08-2006, 03:49 PM

Quote[/b] (KE7EDW @ Feb. 08 2006,07:40)]I was excited to learn about SuitSat... so it failed... but I wonder how many people became interested in Amateur Radio because of this?? The story was on the mainstream press. So even if it was a failure... it was a success.

Eric
I disagree. It said that whatever we do fails. I don't like that message going out. Yes it was a good idea, and as such deserved a little more thought. But, I don't agree with Chuck that we need to burn the suit, blow up the ISS and remove all the families of the Astronauts from the face of the earth.

What we do need to remember is how much buzz this generated and try to do something else along these lines with forethought. Kids need something they can receive on a scanner and participate in. What a great idea this suit thing was to let it fail so badly.

kc2jga

02-08-2006, 04:30 PM

I think it was more like a redneck experiment. 'Hey ya'll, lets see what happens if we take our last working space suit, put the only working radio in it, and kick it out the door'. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

k5co

02-08-2006, 04:44 PM

NO, this was not an experiment. It was some guys screwin' around, and not all that well.

k3wq

02-08-2006, 05:21 PM

Ok, so the use of a defunct space suit was a little strange, but it did prove the feasibility of constructing an inexpensive satellite and launching it by hand. #

If this were to be tried again, I'd suggest launching something more conventional. #How about issuing a challenge to schools to design and build their own satellites constructed from common, commercially available components? #Perhaps AMSAT could offer a basic satellite kit comprised of a metal project box, thermal insulation, transmitter circuit board and components, programmable controller, antenna material, etc. and let the kids have at it. The result would be small, hand-portable units that could be easily tossed out the air lock, one or more at a time during each spacewalk. #

-Dave, K3WQ

KI4NGN

02-08-2006, 05:26 PM

Everyone should cut them some slack! This was an impromptu "experiment". Someone had an idea of something to do that might be fun with some garbage that was going to be jettisoned anyway. It wasn't some OSCAR project, and there was not a lot of time to devote to designing and planning. At least I hope not, because for what that station costs to operate I sure hope they have better things to do than spend time designing and building amateur radio satellites!

M3OQO

02-08-2006, 05:43 PM

Quote[/b] (KC0RSW @ Feb. 07 2006,09:42)]Please remove this post
Why?

w1yw

02-08-2006, 05:47 PM

Quote[/b] (k3wq @ Feb. 08 2006,10:21)]Ok, so the use of a defunct space suit was a little strange, but it did prove the feasibility of constructing an inexpensive satellite and launching it by hand. #

If this were to be tried again, I'd suggest launching something more conventional. #How about issuing a challenge to schools to design and build their own satellites constructed from common, commercially available components? #Perhaps AMSAT could offer a basic satellite kit comprised of a metal project box, thermal insulation, transmitter circuit board and components, programmable controller, antenna material, etc. and let the kids have at it. The result would be small, hand-portable units that could be easily tossed out the air lock, one or more at a time during each spacewalk. #

-Dave, K3WQ
The suit cost 2 million bucks (equiv.).

So...what's inexpensive about it?

M3OQO

02-08-2006, 05:52 PM

The ISS, and all space exploration programmes http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
All that fuel being used up. All that money. All that mass leaving the Earth - what will happen to the Earth's orbit?

w8abn

02-08-2006, 05:56 PM

I CAN NOT understand some of these comments, less we forgot that even the light bulb wasn't created on the first try !!!!!!!!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

M3OQO

02-08-2006, 06:07 PM

A light bulb doesn't cost millions of pounds/dollars

M3OQO

02-08-2006, 06:17 PM

Would a radio transmitter fit in a mayonnaise jar?

yv6azc

02-08-2006, 06:20 PM

One more piece of junk orbiting earth?
Space aliens won’t be too happy. Watch out!
They could sue all of us after invading the planet.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

ko4ma

02-08-2006, 06:30 PM

Suitsat batteries are just fine, not dead. Link analysis shows the output power is probably around 1-2 milliwatts. Amsat.org has some pretty good details on the hows and whys of this project for those who want to learn and understand rather than argue and belittle the effort. Good audio and sstv captures are available on www.aj3u.com.

73, Drew KO4MA

From AMSAT-BB:

Yippee! I just captured the telemetry for SuitSat-1 at 13:49:41 UTC on 8 Feb 2006 right here in Smithville Flats, NY, USA. I pretty much got all of it. My audio file is for 8 February 2006 and starts at 13:49:30 UTC (+/- 1 second) as determined by my "atomic" clock. (The "atomic" clock synchronizes itself to WWVB daily.) The SuitSat message sequence with the telemetry starts at 00:04 into the file. If you can't make it out, the telemetry woman says, "...(Mission) time is 006607 minutes, the temperature is 12 degress celsius, the battery voltage is 26.(?)... (volts)".

Also, listen to the beautiful SuitSat-1 audio I captured starting at 00:55 into the file. My four stacked M2 2m12 antenna(s) are bringing home the bacon! I also have some pretty decent SuitSat-1 image data downloads which I might send to this site later. Stay tuned. -Richard, N2SPI

n1uq

02-08-2006, 06:30 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 08 2006,06:11)]Nonetheless, it was poorly executed--which means it was poorly thought out.

On 29 Jan I predicted the batteries would fail: "within a few hours". You certainly didn't need a Ph.D. to figure it out. And being ticked off that someone told the truth,and then having some hams #project #it as 'negativity' makes the amateur radio service look like a group of pollyanna space cadets, IMO.

Please get GROUNDED in reality people!

This notion that doing 'experiments' will help you iterate to success is grand--but utterly stupid with respect to Suitsat. Read Ron's (AI4CB) trenchant point on Sputnik vs Suitsat.

--------------------------

"It's only a switch"--Dr. Nathan Cohen
Astronaut Bill McArthur Comments on SuitSat

Expedition 12 Commander Bill McArthur, using the Amateur Radio equipment onboard the ISS during a pass over the USA, said this after the spacewalk: "Well you know where there is a will there is a way, so maybe folks we will try again we've got more suits that need to be jettison, actually it was pretty well setup and it wasn't that difficult for us to execute. Thats what we've heard as soon as we came in the hatch yesterday a few minutes later I turned on the radio we should have been pretty close and didn't hear anything! Its the same battery we use in our space suits so I would think they would handle the temperature but its hard to say of course our bodies producing heat and so maybe that keeps the batteries warm but the batteries are actually in an external compartiment on the space suit." http://www.aj3u.com/blog/

Chip, looks like they used the same batteries in the same external compartment. Now what? Before you start giving us your "analysis" how about providing the backup data points you collected from the actual hardware. What's that you don't have actual data and your analysis was/is based on your assumptions. You may have a PHD, but that doesn't mean you have common sense.

w1yw

02-08-2006, 06:51 PM

Quote[/b] (wb1wmb @ Feb. 08 2006,11:30)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 08 2006,06:11)]Nonetheless, it was poorly executed--which means it was poorly thought out.

On 29 Jan I predicted the batteries would fail: "within a few hours". You certainly didn't need a Ph.D. to figure it out. And being ticked off that someone told the truth,and then having some hams #project #it as 'negativity' makes the amateur radio service look like a group of pollyanna space cadets, IMO.

Please get GROUNDED in reality people!

This notion that doing 'experiments' will help you iterate to success is grand--but utterly stupid with respect to Suitsat. Read Ron's (AI4CB) trenchant point on Sputnik vs Suitsat.

--------------------------

"It's only a switch"--Dr. Nathan Cohen
Astronaut Bill McArthur Comments on SuitSat

Expedition 12 Commander Bill McArthur, using the Amateur Radio equipment onboard the ISS during a pass over the USA, said this after the spacewalk: "Well you know where there is a will there is a way, so maybe folks we will try again we've got more suits that need to be jettison, actually it was pretty well setup and it wasn't that difficult for us to execute. Thats what we've heard as soon as we came in the hatch yesterday a few minutes later I turned on the radio we should have been pretty close and didn't hear anything! Its the same battery we use in our space suits so I would think they would handle the temperature but its hard to say of course our bodies producing heat and so maybe that keeps the batteries warm but the batteries are actually in an external compartiment on the space suit." http://www.aj3u.com/blog/

Chip, looks like they used the same batteries in the same external compartment. Now what? Before you start giving us your "analysis" how about providing the backup data points you collected from the actual hardware. What's that you don't have actual data and your analysis was/is based on your assumptions. You may have a PHD, but that doesn't mean you have common sense.
Obviously I have some reasonable knowledge base, as I made a fact-based prediction that proved to be right.

If you took the time to find out anything about me you would realize that I have 30 years of making asessments and making connections. I admit it: it is a talent I am blessed with.

I am not always right. But I usually am.

This certainly was not a SWAG on my part.Anyone asking the right question, and having a sophomore level background in thermo/heat transfer and MATLAB could have reached similar conclusions.

And they should have. Were they shunned from this community? Were they turned off by the Space Cadets??

The amusing thing here is this junior colleague you refer to backs up what I said--and you present it in an entirely opposite view.

That is GOOOOFY.

ko4ma

02-08-2006, 06:56 PM

Battery telemetry this morning shows the voltage to be >26 volts, and the temperature to be 12 degrees C. Obviously someones "prediction" was quite off the mark.

73, Drew KO4MA

w1yw

02-08-2006, 07:16 PM

Quote[/b] (ko4ma @ Feb. 08 2006,11:56)]Battery telemetry this morning shows the voltage to be >26 volts, and the temperature to be 12 degrees C. Obviously someones "prediction" was quite off the mark.

73, Drew KO4MA
Really? Now who is that??

And the diurnal variation in voltage and temperature is.....?

It's not the snapshot voltages that tell the story...it's the excursions.

But, of course, we're HAMS here, so we can apparently say anything we want to try to make a factual discussion biased and personal?

ke4pjw

02-08-2006, 07:31 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 08 2006,06:16)]And the diurnal variation in voltage and temperature is.....?
I would imagine alternating between good for 45 minutes and then bad for 45 minutes for each 24 hour period http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Good to see you Chip. Entertaining as always.

w1yw

02-08-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Feb. 08 2006,12:31)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 08 2006,06:16)]And the diurnal variation in voltage and temperature is.....?
I would imagine alternating between good for 45 minutes and then bad for 45 minutes for each 24 hour period # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Good to see you Chip. Entertaining as always.
...except Suitsat's day is a lot less than 24 hours...

It frankly, frustrates me that these guys aren't celebrating that cool high altitude balloon project you did last Summer, and instead worship this clunker.

YOU did what these guys should ASPIRE to...

http://www.groovin.net/ke4pjw/balloon/

KA5SIG

02-08-2006, 08:24 PM

Gentlemen,

After doing some of my own calculations with an antiquated yet useful lead based manual computer, I have come up with the conclusion that SuitSat-1 did not perform as expected due to the following reasons:
The internal energy stores were compromised due to the posterior O-Ring's seal being compromised and leaking the energy stores waste by-products into the internal compartment of SuitSat-1's seating area. The waste material, over time, had somewhat of a corrosive effect on the inner lining of the suit, causing a non-toxic, yet pungent vapor to compromise the thermal protective properties of the before mentioned suit lining.
Now here is where it gets interesting. After running this analysis through "Matlock", my fears were confirmed. If NASA would have simply infused the Internal Energy Stores with a well known, commonly aquired, "Pink" viscous solution, the O-Ring would not have failed causing the excretion of the malleable brown waste by-product.
Endstate- No degradation of the internal lining of the rear seat area of SuitSat-1. [B]

Whew, my head hurts from all of that. Good thing I at least have a sophmore education in Thermal Dynamics. I might not have been able to perform these ground breaking analysis’s, thereby providing useful information to the Amateur community while at the same time bosting my superior intellect.

Now back to my work of unraveling the Kennedy assassination once and for all.

73 Gentlemen

Brian

ke4pjw

02-08-2006, 08:36 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 08 2006,06:58)]...except Suitsat's day is a lot less than 24 hours...
Not to be argumentative but, (You know MUCH more about orbital mechanics than I do.) did you mean period or diurnal?

It's my understanding that a "period" is the time it takes suit sat to make a complete orbit. (About 90 minutes) and "diurnal" is 24 hours, or the time it takes for 1 rotation of the earth on it's axis.

Thank you for your compliment on the balloon project. I spent a little more time on it than these guys did on Suit Sat :) We are going to fly a few more this year, including another 802.11b balloon. I will have a schedule up when one is decided.

ad5wo

02-08-2006, 08:39 PM

It died.:p

w1yw

02-08-2006, 08:49 PM

Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Feb. 08 2006,13:36)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 08 2006,06:58)]...except Suitsat's day is a lot less than 24 hours...
Not to be argumentative but, (You know MUCH more about orbital mechanics than I do.) did you mean period or diurnal?

It's my understanding that a "period" is the time it takes suit sat to make a complete orbit. (About 90 minutes) and "diurnal" is 24 hours, or the time it takes for 1 rotation of the earth on it's axis.

Thank you for your compliment on the balloon project. I spent a little more time on it than these guys did on Suit Sat http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif We are going to fly a few more this year, including another 802.11b balloon. I will have a schedule up when one is decided.
Diurnal refers to the length of day. The diurnal period for Venus, for example, is not 24 hours.

It does not always refer to a 'day' on th surface of the Earth, although that is the most common usage.

w1yw

02-08-2006, 09:45 PM

Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Feb. 08 2006,13:36)]Thank you for your compliment on the balloon project. I spent a little more time on it than these guys did on Suit Sat http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif We are going to fly a few more this year, including another 802.11b balloon. I will have a schedule up when one is decided.
I hope some of these guys will focus their indignation to something positive and take your example.

Getting a ham project /802.11 balloon up 100,000 feet(!) is a very big deal and worth celebrating.

If you want, I'll see if I can get you a free antenna this summer.

73,
Chip N1IR

w1yw

02-08-2006, 10:12 PM

Quote[/b] (kc8vwm @ Feb. 08 2006,12:53)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 08 2006,11:51)]I am not always right. But I usually am.
Perhaps, the calculation is in error because you are incorrectly positioned at the center of the universe.
The universe has no center.

That is a fact.

Get knowledgable, man!

WA3RA

02-08-2006, 10:34 PM

I copied it 1x2/2x2 this morning (FN21). I also noticed while listening on SSB that there is variable doppeler shift happening...I'll bet that the suit is slowly spinning...and that the batteries are freezing and thawing...

I wonder where this '$2 million suit' comes from...a used Orlan-M suit can be had for 149k euros...:p

w8mkr

02-09-2006, 12:03 AM

Hail to the Rocket Scientists ... wouldn't you think one of them would have considered this very elementary issue?

kb9lei

02-09-2006, 12:12 AM

Let me state first I have no connection to AMSAT, I am not a particle engineer, nor do I profess to have knowlege of the workings of the College of Cardinals.

That said, SuitSat was a qualified sucess.

It got people's attention (500+ media hits); it truly cost very little, since everything was garbage or going to be garbage; and was thought out and executed on a shoestring budget with minimal planning time.

Could they have kept the batteries warmer? Probably--but at what cost. #Either your shorten the transmit time by running a heater off the same batteries; you install more batteries for the heater and loose some of your spares (Plus I doubt those were fresh batteries anyway); and while your already draining energy stores for heat, why not put a gyro stablizer on the thing to keep the antenna pointed at certain QTHs to keep the naysayers happy.

Take heart in the exposure we gained from this #EXPERIMENT. #If another is done, I'm sure there will be any number of things done differently. #But, at the rate this discussion is going, I wouldn't blame AMSAT if they just said to bring the old suits home or continue to jettison them to burn up, just like Ivan Ivanovich will soon.

wa6jfk

02-09-2006, 01:52 AM

Damn, they should have used "Proven Technology"

A Drake UV-3 (with the remote head kit) and a Sears DIEHARD car battery would surely still be operating.

Heck, the UV-3 might have survived re-entry.

WA6JFK

M3KCK

02-09-2006, 03:51 AM

SuitSat Just Heard here in the U.K

Perhaps the Moderators would Consider Removing this thread from the Home page as News!

With this thread appearing in the Home page News
It may come across to some people as an Official Announcement?

With that being said it is Incorrect and misinformed News information.

Just in case someone is not sure as to the Status of SuitSat Click on this link
http://www.suitsat.org/results.cgi

Given that this is a World wide Amateur website, I am sure that Qrz.com would Not want to give the Wrong Information to Amateurs around the World on such an Important topic?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

KG6LFN

02-09-2006, 04:12 AM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 08 2006,06:21)]And learning from mistakes is fine, but being able to anticipate obvious ones, after 49 years in space, is a requirement of intelligence.

Or are we now supposed to diss intelligence here ALSO?
My sentiments entirely.

This was a stupid idea with a predictable ending. I only wonder where all the posters from the “we learned a lesson from this experiment” bent have been for the past half century of technical discoveries.

Some other “lessons”you may take note of: When camping in the mountains, bring a jacket. When flying to the sun, go at night when it’s not so hot

KV7X

02-09-2006, 04:19 AM

I don't know that this "experiment" was good or bad, but there was a really nice mention of it on ABC radio network news when it was launched (or jettisoned?), including the fact that ham radio operators around the world would be listening for it. Some good, non-disaster-related PR about our hobby.

It was one of the more positive news items that day. If we want to get agitated about something related to politics, taxes, or international relations, there are certainly many more threatening issues that we could choose from ... IMHO.

Cheers,

Terry KV7X

KG8FV

02-09-2006, 05:00 AM

Hey this was a great Idea. Give the guy a break. I read in the paper the other day that is was still ALIVE!.. Believe that one.

KG8FV

02-09-2006, 05:02 AM

At least we got some PR and not have to hear our President...lol
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

KI4NGN

02-09-2006, 12:03 PM

The universe began with the Big Bang, which was an expansion of all matter and energy from a single point. Given that everything expanded away from that point, that point would most definitely be the center of the universe.

Given gravitational effects on the galaxies during the 14-15 billion years of expansion, it may be extremely difficult to reverse engineer the expansion to determine where the center was located, but that doesn't mean there is no center. This has always been an interest of mine, to answer this question.

So with this goal in mind I constructed a 1.5 trillion line program written in C# to accept the current velocity and direction of all matter in the universe relative to all matter in the universe and then calculate the location of the center. It took a few hours to run, but the program just displayed a pop-up with the result.... "42".

Huh? Jeez, there must be a bug. Oh well, back to the code editor.

w1yw

02-09-2006, 01:00 PM

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Feb. 09 2006,05:03)]The universe began with the Big Bang, which was an expansion of all matter and energy from a single point. Given that everything expanded away from that point, that point would most definitely be the center of the universe.

Given gravitational effects on the galaxies during the 14-15 billion years of expansion, it may be extremely difficult to reverse engineer the expansion to determine where the center was located, but that doesn't mean there is no center. This has always been an interest of mine, to answer this question.

So with this goal in mind I constructed a 1.5 trillion line program written in C# to accept the current velocity and direction of all matter in the universe relative to all matter in the universe and then calculate the location of the center. It took a few hours to run, but the program just displayed a pop-up with the result.... "42".

Huh? Jeez, there must be a bug. Oh well, back to the code editor.
My friend,

Your understanding on this is incomplete.

The universe, has, had, and will have--no center.

I am sure some of the eager students who have been following Suitsat can fill you in.

73,
Chip N1IR

w1yw

02-09-2006, 01:04 PM

Quote[/b] (KV7X @ Feb. 08 2006,21:19)]I don't know that this "experiment" was good or bad, but there was a really nice mention of it on ABC radio network news when it was launched (or jettisoned?), including the fact that ham radio operators around the world would be listening for it. Some good, non-disaster-related PR about our hobby.

It was one of the more positive news items that day. If we want to get agitated about something related to politics, taxes, or international relations, there are certainly many more threatening issues that we could choose from ... IMHO.

Cheers,

Terry KV7X
Terry,

That's good stuff. The problem is that some very vocal hams are calling this fiasco a success. That loses MAJOR credibility for the amateur radio service in the public's eye.

And when someone comes on here to correct them--and gets bashed--that looks even worse.

73,
Chip N1IR

K8ERV

02-09-2006, 01:24 PM

42 seems ok to me. Send it to NASA.

Big Bang, I can't verify this as I was away at the time, but there are competing theories, such as colliding universes.

TOM K8ERV #Montrose Colo

K8ERV

02-09-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote[/b] (kb9lei @ Feb. 08 2006,17:12)].

. #Either your shorten the transmit time by running a heater off the same batteries;
Battery operated heater? Naw, just a LONG extension cord. Bet Lowes would donate one.

Just what is the temp out thattaway?

TOM K8ERV #Montrose Colo

KI4NGN

02-09-2006, 02:20 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 09 2006,06:00)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Feb. 09 2006,05:03)]The universe began with the Big Bang, which was an expansion of all matter and energy from a single point. Given that everything expanded away from that point, that point would most definitely be the center of the universe.

Given gravitational effects on the galaxies during the 14-15 billion years of expansion, it may be extremely difficult to reverse engineer the expansion to determine where the center was located, but that doesn't mean there is no center. This has always been an interest of mine, to answer this question.

So with this goal in mind I constructed a 1.5 trillion line program written in C# to accept the current velocity and direction of all matter in the universe relative to all matter in the universe and then calculate the location of the center. It took a few hours to run, but the program just displayed a pop-up with the result.... "42".

Huh? Jeez, there must be a bug. Oh well, back to the code editor.
My friend,

Your understanding on this is incomplete.

The universe, has, had, and will have--no center.

I am sure some of the eager students who have been following Suitsat can fill you in.

73,
Chip N1IR
Yes God, thank you for your unerring insight.

The universe has no center.

And the world is flat. Oh no, wait, turns out it isn't.

Man will never fly, it is pointless to try. Oh no, wait, yep, wrong again.

The universe will one day collapse. Oh wait, no it won't.

There's no such thing a dark matter. Yes there is. No there isn't. Yes there is.

Will you please explain the universe to all of these theoretical astrophysicists and astronomers so they can move on to more important matters?!?!

Addition, sorry, I couldn't resist.

If you believe in the steady-state theory of the universe, that it has just always existed, then I can accept no center.

However, if you accept the Big Bang theory, then please bear with my unscientific understanding of what I have read.

The theory says that there was this single point of infinite density. Then it exploded. Let's say that Kurt Vonnegut's Universal Will To Become caused this.

The theory postulates the state and SIZE of the universe in the first microseconds as being X size. Milliseconds later it is Y size, and after the first second it is Z size. Do you notice the use of the word SIZE? The primordial universe was expanding in all directions away from the singularity, and had a measurable size in 3 dimensions. What if, just for the sake of thinking about it, we call the point that everything was expanding away from the CENTER?

It may not make much sense now to think of a center, but there most assuredly was a center.

Jeez guy...lighten up!

wb3ftq

02-09-2006, 03:09 PM

There was a professor at MIT years ago who used to tell his students when an experiment went wrong that now they would truly learn something. i cannot remember his name but among other things he is credited with "inventing" high-speed stroboscopic photogtraphy.

w1yw

02-09-2006, 03:11 PM

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Feb. 09 2006,07:20)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 09 2006,06:00)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Feb. 09 2006,05:03)]The universe began with the Big Bang, which was an expansion of all matter and energy from a single point. Given that everything expanded away from that point, that point would most definitely be the center of the universe.

Given gravitational effects on the galaxies during the 14-15 billion years of expansion, it may be extremely difficult to reverse engineer the expansion to determine where the center was located, but that doesn't mean there is no center. This has always been an interest of mine, to answer this question.

So with this goal in mind I constructed a 1.5 trillion line program written in C# to accept the current velocity and direction of all matter in the universe relative to all matter in the universe and then calculate the location of the center. It took a few hours to run, but the program just displayed a pop-up with the result.... "42".

Huh? Jeez, there must be a bug. Oh well, back to the code editor.
My friend,

Your understanding on this is incomplete.

The universe, has, had, and will have--no center.

I am sure some of the eager students who have been following Suitsat can fill you in.

73,
Chip N1IR
Yes God, thank you for your unerring insight.

The universe has no center.

And the world is flat. Oh no, wait, turns out it isn't.

Man will never fly, it is pointless to try. Oh no, wait, yep, wrong again.

The universe will one day collapse. Oh wait, no it won't.

There's no such thing a dark matter. Yes there is. No there isn't. Yes there is.

Will you please explain the universe to all of these theoretical astrophysicists and astronomers so they can move on to more important matters?!?!

Addition, sorry, I couldn't resist.

If you believe in the steady-state theory of the universe, that it has just always existed, then I can accept no center.

However, if you accept the Big Bang theory, then please bear with my unscientific understanding of what I have read.

The theory says that there was this single point of infinite density. Then it exploded. Let's say that Kurt Vonnegut's Universal Will To Become caused this.

The theory postulates the state and SIZE of the universe in the first microseconds as being X size. Milliseconds later it is Y size, and after the first second it is Z size. Do you notice the use of the word SIZE? The primordial universe was expanding in all directions away from the singularity, and had a measurable size in 3 dimensions. What if, just for the sake of thinking about it, we call the point that everything was expanding away from the CENTER?

It may not make much sense now to think of a center, but there most assuredly was a center.

Jeez guy...lighten up!
Certainly. I will explain your error. And it is my pleasure to provide this insight to you.

The universe is an unstable vacuum event; something that happens every once in a while. This vacuum instability produced a partial unraveling of some dimensions--probably a subset of a total of 11-- that led to creation of mass-energy in the forms we are familiar with.

Since dimension is tied up with matter, dimensionality does not exist independent of matter. It is meaningless to describe a 'center'--in this context-- as there is no cartography without dimension, and dimension did not and does not decouple from matter on the scales you refer to.

There was no 'explosion' in the Big Bang. It is essentially, an unraveling of dimensions. Distant galaxies (which, by definition are a snapshot of a 'younger' universe) are not explosively and kinematically flying away from us at huge speeds: The relative #dimensionality of space to time was different at an earlier time and that gives the illusion of 'speed'for these distant galaxies. As you go to farther distances, you go back to earlier times, and the related rate of spatial dimensionality to time dimension was different then. Hence the Hubble law.

It isn't the universe which is expanding from a kinematic explosion, #but the change of dimensionality with time relative to spatial dimensions.

The 'center' myth is a remnant of this false understanding that the universe is a kinematic explosion.

It is not.

Lenny Mlodinow has a nice cosmology book that's on the shelves. You would clearly benefit by it. If not, an earlier reference that might help is 'Gravity's Lens--Views of the New Cosmology'.

It was sure fun to write than one.

73.
Chip N1IR

w1yw

02-09-2006, 03:19 PM

Quote[/b] (kc8vwm @ Feb. 09 2006,07:39)]Never mind the center of the Universe, I am still trying to figure out this four corners of the Earth thing.
That is obvious.

Perhaps you might benefit by waiting to learn before you comment.

A constructive suggestion.

73,
Chip N1IR

ke4pjw

02-09-2006, 03:19 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 09 2006,02:11)]The universe is an unstable vacuum event; something that happens every once in a while. This vacuum instability produced a partial unraveling of some dimensions--probably a subset of a total of 11-- that led to creation of mass-energy in the forms we are familiar with.
Chip, does this mean you are an advocate of (a) string theory?

k5co

02-09-2006, 03:23 PM

Nothing said in this entire thread is true.

KI4NGN

02-09-2006, 03:25 PM

I am never wrong. I once thought I was, but I was mistaken.

Jeez Chip...lighten up!

w8abn

02-09-2006, 03:34 PM

Relaxe and have FUN

" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe - Albert Einstein:laugh:

AA8X

02-09-2006, 04:55 PM

Were it not for Russia, our astronauts would be dead by now as NASA has been unable fly to the ISS without problems. Was the SuitSat project designed by NASA?

n1uq

02-09-2006, 05:03 PM

SuitSat has been reported operational as of 2 days, 5 hours, 6 minutes, and 49 seconds. http://www.suitsat.org/results.cgi

Earth is the center of the universe, SuitSAt is orbiting Earth and Earth is slowly orbiting around some PHD's head.

n1uq

02-09-2006, 05:06 PM

Hay, it's now 02:05:12:51, go SuitSat go!

Just wondering, did they launch the Shuttle and replace the batteries?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?

w1yw

02-09-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote[/b] (wb1wmb @ Feb. 09 2006,10:03)]SuitSat has been reported operational as of 2 days, 5 hours, 6 minutes, and 49 seconds. http://www.suitsat.org/results.cgi

Earth is the center of the universe, SuitSAt is orbiting Earth and Earth is slowly orbiting around some PHD's head.
I have a theory.

My theory is that many hams hated school and blame their teachers for it.

As a result, when someone comes along and provides an educated perspective, these resentful individuals gravitate like a bee to nectar, to try to tick off the symbol of their frustration.

Fortunately , ham radio also has lots and lots of very bright people, who themselves gravitated to the service to be around other very bright people. And, of course, the camaraderie that the 'hobby' used to offer in spades.

Not sure why folks become hams now, based upon some of what we hear and see here. I think they should, but the reasons have changed.

One can only hope that a balance of perspectives gives non-hams the sense of this pluralistic service, neither fully elitist nor goofball.Unfortunately, also, not very cutting edge most of the time, with a few notable exceptions.

Frankly much of it looks like CB from the 70's, only without as much foul language or pornographic verbiage.

73,
Chip N1IR

KI4NGN

02-09-2006, 05:33 PM

My theory is that those who can, do, and those who can't keep going to school until there is nothing left for them to do except to write books about all of the things they have learned in school.

Chip, you may be educated, but you are certainly one of the most elitist persons I've yet to encounter in the ham world. I'm happy that you have (according to you) managed to find many other hams with your condescending attitude to help fill the sphere of superiority that is your life.

Did anyone ever mention or hint at developing your social skills during the acquisition of your higher education? Or did you make a conscious decision to just surround yourself with people with at least your level of education, or with those who are so in awe of your intellect that they drool all over themselves at the opportunity to be corrected by you?

And with that I will not let this troll hook me in again.

M3OQO

02-09-2006, 06:53 PM

If all matter and energy in the universe was in one infinitessimally small point (the big bang theory), then that point would be extremely hot, which would mean that it would be really big - sort of a paradox - it doesn't work.

w1yw

02-09-2006, 07:04 PM

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Feb. 09 2006,10:33)]My theory is that those who can, do, and those who can't keep going to school until there is nothing left for them to do except to write books about all of the things they have learned in school.

Chip, you may be educated, but you are certainly one of the most elitist persons I've yet to encounter in the ham world. I'm happy that you have (according to you) managed to find many other hams with your condescending attitude to help fill the sphere of superiority that is your life.

Did anyone ever mention or hint at developing your social skills during the acquisition of your higher education? Or did you make a conscious decision to just surround yourself with people with at least your level of education, or with those who are so in awe of your intellect that they drool all over themselves at the opportunity to be corrected by you?

And with that I will not let this troll hook me in again.
I am sorry you have so much pent-up anger. Please don't embarrass yourself by being public in focusing on a stranger in this way.

I didn't give you a challenging time in your past. I am not a surrogate for those educators you feel treated you poorly.

Thank you.

kd5shk

02-09-2006, 07:22 PM

don,t cut down icom they are good radio too work

kd5shk

02-09-2006, 07:22 PM

don,t cut down icom they are good radio too work
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

ke4pjw

02-09-2006, 07:28 PM

Quote[/b] (M3OQO @ Feb. 09 2006,05:53)]If all matter and energy in the universe was in one infinitessimally small point (the big bang theory), then that point would be extremely hot, which would mean that it would be really big - sort of a paradox - it doesn't work.
No, not "really big", but incredibly dense.

You must keep in mind also that there might be other dimensions aside from the 4 that we perceive as space-time.

The problem is we have no way to directly detect these other dimensions, but must look for unexplained behavior of energy/matter in the 4 that we can perceive.

Observations of the universe through "big bang" colored glasses is a good place to start looking for such behavior.

w1yw

02-09-2006, 08:12 PM

Quote[/b] (kc8vwm @ Feb. 09 2006,12:57)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 09 2006,08:11)]As you go to farther distances, you go back to earlier times, and the related rate of spatial dimensionality to time dimension was different then. Hence the Hubble law.

Chip N1IR
I have to disagree with the assertion that the Hubble law involves the element of time. Speed of travel is the primary element measured in this theory based expansion model.

It's true in the fact that when we see all stars moving away from us, this does not imply that we are at the center of the universe. Similarly, it doesn't suggest that there is any change in the element of "time", but rather it simply means that the universe is expanding. This often equates to a relationship to the big bang theory in principle.

The Hubble law refers to the measurment of distance and the recessional velocity as measured by the doppler red shift.

Expressed as V = Ho D

where:

V is the observed velocity of the galaxy away from us, usually in km/sec

H is Hubble's "constant", in km/sec/Mpc

D is the distance to the galaxy in Mpc

Hubbles "best accepted value" constant value is usually expressed as 72 km/s per megaparsec (+/- 10%).

73 Charles - KC8VWM
You have basic misunderstanding of the underlying physics.

The 'speed' is not kinematic. It is a velocity caused by a a time-varying dilation over a cosmic epoch. It is measured as a speed, only because speed is a rate of change of a spatial dimension(s) with respect to time. You can either change position-- or dilate the dimensionality. They give the same measurement. But they are caused by two very different principles.

Galaxies are NOT 'flying away' from us.

Go get educated.

w1yw

02-09-2006, 08:16 PM

Quote[/b] (kc8vwm @ Feb. 09 2006,12:57)]I have to disagree with the assertion that the Hubble law involves the element of time.
This is the same person that asserts that Suitsat is a "spectacular success".

OM, of course it invokes time.

w1yw

02-09-2006, 08:18 PM

Quote[/b] (kc8vwm @ Feb. 09 2006,12:57)]It's true in the fact that when we see all stars moving away from us...
Not true. Depending on the direction you are looking,and how far away, some are redshifted; some are blueshifted.Some aren't shifted at all.

At great distances all GALAXIES (and quasars) are redshifted.

ab8ma

02-09-2006, 08:23 PM

Quote[/b] (k5co @ Feb. 09 2006,15:23)]Nothing said in this entire thread is true.
Very true. Or is this a paradox?

w1yw

02-09-2006, 08:25 PM

Quote[/b] (kc8vwm @ Feb. 09 2006,12:57)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 09 2006,08:11)]As you go to farther distances, you go back to earlier times, and the related rate of spatial dimensionality to time dimension was different then. Hence the Hubble law.

Chip N1IR
I have to disagree with the assertion that the Hubble law involves the element of time. Speed of travel is the primary element measured in this theory based expansion model.

It's true in the fact that when we see all stars moving away from us, this does not imply that we are at the center of the universe. Similarly, it doesn't suggest that there is any change in the element of "time", but rather it simply means that the universe is expanding. This often equates to a relationship to the big bang theory in principle.

The Hubble law refers to the measurment of distance and the recessional velocity as measured by the doppler red shift.

Expressed as V = Ho D

where:

V is the observed velocity of the galaxy away from us, usually in km/sec

H is Hubble's "constant", in km/sec/Mpc

D is the distance to the galaxy in Mpc

Hubbles "best accepted value" constant value is usually expressed as 72 km/s per megaparsec (+/- 10%).

73 Charles - KC8VWM
Hubble's best value was NOT 72 km/s/MPc. It was in the 500 range. He had very little data and could not remove random kinematic motion of nearby galaxies. And Humason did it--not Hubble. Also, Robertson presented the first 'Hubble Law', not Hubble.

Isn't knowledge fun?

In recent years the value has been ascertained to be in the 70's, with a fair amount of precision.

wp3bm

02-09-2006, 08:28 PM

I don't know about the gripe about american taxpayer's dollars: It was a russian spacesuit!! Also, how much would the tiny antenna on the helmet cost? roughly $40, maybe less. Maybe an SMA to BNC adapter line, $20-$30. A cheap 2M ht, $60-90 new (which I doubth). The experience? priceless, why, read on.

How many times have we been told by the experts of an epoch that this or that could not be done, only to be later on demonstrated that in many cases, it was otherwise, or at least, not exactly as the experts said.

I thinks this is, at least in part, one of those cases. To comission a fully funded experiment just to show that conventional, down to earth technologies could work in space would have been an outcry from the beginning, regardless of the result. So what is the solution? Do it cheaply, in a suit from other country to keep our costs low. It will serve two purposes: Provide HAMs with something to monitor and report. This is a FREE, no cost worldwide monitoring network. Some can not monitor it, but some others still can. How much does a HAM satt cost to develop, launch and operate? Who would think an HT made for working on earth would survive this long in the harsh, hostile space? Also, those who watched the space walk on NASA channel, know that there were two tasks that day: tossing the Suitsat and more important, work with a cable assembly that could be cut during visiting ship maneuvers, which could compromise the station safety. So, the Suitsat was a "side dish". If it worked great, it would debunk the theory that a conventional radio can not be used in space without a very expensive preparation. If it did not work at all, then the theory is true and demonstrated. But, if it worked, even to a degree less than what we hoped (or not hoped at all!), then it demonstrated that with a little more preparation, off the shelf technology could be used in space, thus reducing costs. The fact that some people are still hearing it, reinforce the fact.

Things have to be seen in the big picture, and sometimes we have to experiment with things ourselves. With no risks, there are no true gains.

w1yw

02-09-2006, 08:44 PM

Quote[/b] (kc8vwm @ Feb. 09 2006,13:42)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 09 2006,13:25)]73 Charles - KC8VWM
Hubble's best value was NOT 72 km/s/MPc. It was in the 500 range. He had very little data and could not remove random kinematic motion of nearby galaxies. And Humason did it--not Hubble. Also, Robertson presented the first 'Hubble Law', not Hubble.

Isn't knowledge fun?

In recent years the value has been ascertained to be in the 70's, with a fair amount of precision.
Obviously there is a great deal of confusion in this area.

The most recent calculation of the constant was done by the satellite WMAP in 2003, yielding a value of 71±4 (km/s)/Mpc.

Are we having fun yet?[/quote]
There is no confusion.

You made false statements and were corrected.

Again.

w8abn

02-09-2006, 09:09 PM

Quote[/b] (wp3bm @ Feb. 09 2006,15:28)]I don't know about the gripe about american taxpayer's dollars: It was a russian spacesuit!! Also, how much would the tiny antenna on the helmet cost? roughly $40, maybe less. Maybe an SMA to BNC adapter line, $20-$30. A cheap 2M ht, $60-90 new (which I doubth). The experience? priceless, why, read on.

How many times have we been told by the experts of an epoch that this or that could not be done, only to be later on demonstrated that in many cases, it was otherwise, or at least, not exactly as the experts said.

I thinks this is, at least in part, one of those cases. To comission a fully funded experiment just to show that conventional, down to earth technologies could work in space would have been an outcry from the beginning, regardless of the result. So what is the solution? Do it cheaply, in a suit from other country to keep our costs low. It will serve two purposes: Provide HAMs with something to monitor and report. This is a FREE, no cost worldwide monitoring network. Some can not monitor it, but some others still can. How much does a HAM satt cost to develop, launch and operate? Who would think an HT made for working on earth would survive this long in the harsh, hostile space? Also, those who watched the space walk on NASA channel, know that there were two tasks that day: tossing the Suitsat and more important, work with a cable assembly that could be cut during visiting ship maneuvers, which could compromise the station safety. So, the Suitsat was a "side dish". If it worked great, it would debunk the theory that a conventional radio can not be used in space without a very expensive preparation. If it did not work at all, then the theory is true and demonstrated. But, if it worked, even to a degree less than what we hoped (or not hoped at all!), then it demonstrated that with a little more preparation, off the shelf technology could be used in space, thus reducing costs. The fact that some people are still hearing it, reinforce the fact.

Things have to be seen in the big picture, and sometimes we have to experiment with things ourselves. With no risks, there are no true gains.
Well Said !!!!!!!!!!

w1yw

02-09-2006, 09:45 PM

Quote[/b] (kc8vwm @ Feb. 09 2006,14:30)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 09 2006,13:25)]And Humason did it--not Hubble. Also, Robertson presented the first 'Hubble Law', not Hubble.

Isn't knowledge fun?

In recent years the value has been ascertained to be in the 70's, with a fair amount of precision.
Actually your wrong..

Again...

It was both Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason who both worked collaboratively at the Mt. Wilson Observatory from 1929 - 1931 to work on the original plot known today as the Hubble Law.

Humason’s name is usually overlooked but he was equally involved in this work.

You are also suggesting that Humanson did it alone and Hubble didn't do any work on the Hubble law.

This is simply a completely inaccurate statement.

You are also suggesting that "Robertson" created Hubble's law.

That's also a rhetorical and completely inaccurate statement, otherwise it would be "Robertson's" law.

Only "Hubble & Milton" presented the Hubble Law, not Robertson as you indicated. Hubble's work was based on Carl Wirtz earlier proposal suggesting that redshift is proportional to distance.

It's just way off base to to suggest that these chronological events happened any other way.
It is well-known amongst astronomers that Humason did the work. The fact that he went from mule-driver to cosmic discoverer has not escape the admiration of some (including myself).You might also look at: Hubble's recent bio. I'm sure you can find it.

H.P. Robertson, the cosmologist-(later)Caltech professor and competitor with Hubble, first reported the velocity-distance diagram for distant galaxies and showed that it was a cosmological indicator. It was published in the Philosophical Magazine in 1928.

Robertson was a mathematical physicist. He took the data gathered by Hubble and Humason--reported in early stages as part of #a 'galaxy distance' study and showed the correlation with velocity. Hubble and Humason's data was continued for several years and then reported as being more definitive--although one needs to stretch that interpretation: Robertson correlation held and was done and published several years before Hubble's analysis.

That Hubble was more thorough is correct--he collected more data before he investigated the correlation of junior colleague Robertson. But basically he was a good observer, who had a great assistant, who felt that the data was primary AND interpretation was secondary. This is the classic division between 'astronomy' and 'astrophysics'.

Robertson factually and accurately stated his historical finding--deadpan I might add-- in Encyclopedia Britannica in several printed editions, including the 1963 one (where I first saw it), in which he wrote the 'Cosmology' section (post-humously).

It was verified by me in my work on 'Gravity's Lens'--I dug out the 1928 Philosophical Magazine article from the Boston University archives; the issue was devoted to cosmology. Cosmology was considered 'natural philosophy' at that time.

I am amused that you are pretending you know what you are talking about--let your ghost writer stand up for himself--or give us your reference.

It is now your option to explore these two references for yourself. Both of which are sufficiently described for you to hunt them down. That is the scholar's obligation and joy.

Not all facts come from the internet--or internutz. Or younger 'colleagues' that haven't paid the price of true scholarship.

KI4NGN

02-09-2006, 11:21 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 09 2006,12:04)]I am sorry you have so much pent-up anger. Please don't embarrass yourself by being public in focusing on a stranger in this way.

I didn't give you a challenging time in your past. I am not a surrogate for those educators you feel treated you poorly.

Thank you.
Yes, hooked once again.

And with absolutely no pent-up or active hostility or anger directed at you or any other person, your posts following my last just confirm my last.

You have done nothing but focus your superiority on strangers.

I am not in the least embarassed for the entire world to know that I believe you to be a sanctimonious putz.

You're welcome.

KD5NCO

02-09-2006, 11:47 PM

Chip

I have been deliberately quiet in this and the original suit sat threads because you are doing a excellent job of pointing out the folly of ARS members appearing goofy and ignorant.

Cheers brother, keep it up, eventually there will be more then four or five of us that the light bulb of ARS as a "service" Epiphany has started to glow!

This "experiment" in 1962 with few available hours of computer time or some simple slide rule calculations probably would have been a decent exercise and success.

But in 2006 to fail this spectacularly is inexcusable, lazy and smacks of a "stunt" more then a serious effort! IMHO

A shame to get so many folks are stirred up over nothing worth trying to find and listen to.

I have been in the class room when a grade schooler has a brief chat with a Astronaut and it is extraordinary motivator. I have also been there when a young boy scout waited for hours for a shot at a chat "on the air" during "field day" but the band went south and he left disillusioned never to return.

OK, it is true that crap happens, and the loss of the one or two young minds due to a sporadic 40m or 80m opening is no big deal... However, this was a world wide failure and irrespective of any cheap fleeting press we may have gotten, the disappointment #of thousands of school children is a grand failure, again IMHO

If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing well.

I support the ARS, ARRL and AMSAT with my energy, cash, and vocal support.

I demand that they/we all do much better!

w1yw

02-10-2006, 12:28 AM

Thanks for piping in. Most of these guys assume that if you don't comment that no one has similar views.

We shouldn't pin this one on Bill MacArthur. Bill is a great American and a wonderful role model for young people.

He oozes integrity.

Why NOT the best?

KB8SPC

02-10-2006, 01:00 AM

Quote[/b] (ab8ma @ Feb. 09 2006,13:23)]Quote[/b] (k5co @ Feb. 09 2006,15:23)]Nothing said in this entire thread is true.
Very true. Or is this a paradox?
The only thing in this thread that is true, is that humans are not perfect nor are their creations. Most of you gripe and moan when someone tries something new. How do you think Ham Radio came to where it is now?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif By people trying new things and learning lessons. What does all this show to the people that want to get their ticket? My 11 year old daughter shows more maturity than what I have seen here. This may give me a one way ticket off of this site. But, I hope; no, I pray that I was able to open at least one person's eyes, that you don't have to act like babies and cry, or two year olds and have temper tantrum over someone willing to try something new. So basicly, GROW UP!!

kc8ycz

02-10-2006, 01:10 AM

Quote[/b] (KB8SPC @ Feb. 09 2006,21:00)]Quote[/b] (ab8ma @ Feb. 09 2006,13:23)]Quote[/b] (k5co @ Feb. 09 2006,15:23)]Nothing said in this entire thread is true.
Very true. Or is this a paradox?
The only thing in this thread that is true, is that humans are not perfect nor are their creations. Most of you gripe and moan when someone tries something new. How do you think Ham Radio came to where it is now?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif By people trying new things and learning lessons. What does all this show to the people that want to get their ticket? My 11 year old daughter shows more maturity than what I have seen here. This may give me a one way ticket off of this site. But, I hope; no, I pray that I was able to open at least one person's eyes, that you don't have to act like babies and cry, or two year olds and have temper tantrum over someone willing to try something new. So basicly, GROW UP!!
I agree with you 1000%. It was something new, it was fun to try and listen, and there was some things learned. Even though I did not here anything it was still a blast trying to listen. Maybe next time, if there is a next time, it will last a little longer then it did. Again I agree with KB8SPC and people need to just grow up, relax and enjoy the hobby we all know as amateur radio. Just my 2 cents worth.

ky5u

02-10-2006, 01:19 AM

Quote[/b] ]vwm: Why is it that we must somehow relinquish ourselves to the mentality that we must gain instant gratification from actually hearing Suitsat on the air or else this entire project somehow becomes an instant (just add water) failure?

Because the whole goal was to be heard by regular folks on scanners. No special gizmotchy cubical helix mega-yagi needed. It FAILED to do that. It is a FAILURE! What is so hard to accept about that? I have personally learned great lessons from my failures. Lets learn a lesson from this. Next time they might get it right!!

Reminds me of giving "participation" trophies to kids who lose. They never learn the value of dealing with failure.

KB8SPC

02-10-2006, 01:50 AM

CNN - Ham's In Space (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/02/02/recycled.spacesuit.reut/index.html?section=cnn_topstories)

You look at the last phrase of this article and you can see for yourself that we using the lesson's learned to better ourselves.

KD8CMV

02-10-2006, 02:33 AM

Quote[/b] (KB8SPC @ Feb. 09 2006,18:00)]Quote[/b] (ab8ma @ Feb. 09 2006,13:23)]Quote[/b] (k5co @ Feb. 09 2006,15:23)]Nothing said in this entire thread is true.
Very true. Or is this a paradox?
The only thing in this thread that is true, is that humans are not perfect nor are their creations. Most of you gripe and moan when someone tries something new. How do you think Ham Radio came to where it is now?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif By people trying new things and learning lessons. What does all this show to the people that want to get their ticket? My 11 year old daughter shows more maturity than what I have seen here. This may give me a one way ticket off of this site. But, I hope; no, I pray that I was able to open at least one person's eyes, that you don't have to act like babies and cry, or two year olds and have temper tantrum over someone willing to try something new. So basicly, GROW UP!!

I agree Jude.

For those who think nothing said in this thread is true, I've put links in here for you to check it all out.
Just because I know you've got your facts straight!

Myself, as a child I would look up at the stars and wonder what it would be like to be up there. (I watched “Lost in Space” a lot) I also wondered HOW and if their radios could be heard that far off in space down here and how far out into space, it’s so vast. I worried that if an astronaut were to jettison too far off, and come unattached from the shuttle, how long before he couldn’t be heard? How long before they could pull him back to safety?
I wasn't about to suggest trying it out there, much too dangerous.
So, the thought of an empty one floating around and transmitting back was very intriguing when I heard of this project.

Quote[/b] ]"Some of our Russian partners in the ISS program, mainly a group led by Sergey Samburov, had an idea: Maybe we can turn old spacesuits into useful satellites." SuitSat is a first test of that idea.

Ok, back to basic schooling boys.
As the above stated comment on
NASA (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/26jan_suitsat.htm)
it says they "had an idea", and "SuitSat is a first test of that idea."
What's so hard to understand about that?

Life is all about testing and learning. Without the first steps and the materials, we're nowhere.
Instead of using NEW spacesuits which cost $2 mill right off the bat, they are using old ones that will be trashed or incinerated.
Wait, I’ve also read that somewhere which comfirms this THEORY of mine.
O’, here it is on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11102068)

Quote[/b] ]Usually, the suits are thrown away into space, stuffed with other throwaway items such as empty food containers and dirty clothing.

It’s called RECYCLING; for those who don’t do it, or it’s too big of a word for you, I’ll explain it for you.
They aren't wasting $2 mill, they are making farther use of that money.
That's called good old fashioned saving money, stretching and making the most out of the almighty dollar.
It's like the clothes we hand down to our kids that's still in good condition. If we can't afford to buy new, we pass it down for USE instead of throwing it away.
There's nothing different here with the suit. It's being handed down to another NASA project, a different one.

Yes, maybe the strangest some have seen, and we've spent money in better ways then this before. But, with each test on anything, if you learn something, then the test is a success. If you didn't learn ONE SINGLE THING, not even answers to questions you didn't even consider, then, it still can't be classified as a failure. If you always wonder and never try, THAT is a failure! Only those afraid of change and failure would consider it to be one. The world needs risk takers as much as thinkers. Without the risk takers/doers, we just sit on our butts and wonder...

"One small step for trash is giant leap for ham-kind”, nice title from the CNN Web site. Hmmm, kind of straight to the point, isn't it?

People go hunting every year and aren't guaranteed that 30 point buck, but that doesn't discourage them from spending the money to do so, does it? Does that make it useless as well? No it isn't exactly an experiment for most, but we do it. Unless you pay at a hunt club to get that buck, it isn’t guaranteed now is it?

Quote[/b] ]"Will the suit overheat? How long will the batteries last? Can we get a clear transmission if the suit tumbles?" wonders Bauer. These are some of the questions SuitSat will answer, laying the groundwork for SuitSats of the future.

See, they had questions (and I'm positive that's the very short version of all their questions) and wanted answers and they got them. They also stated those answers lay the groundwork for SuitSat testing in the future. McFadin already said there’s stuff they have in mind for the next one.
Eventually, the suit will be pulled into Earth's atmosphere and incinerated, so it won't become space junk forever. Project organizers already have their eyes on another Russian spacesuit expected to be decommissioned later this year, so another attempt at answering some questions will soon become a reality.

Again, what's so hard to understand about that?

Quote[/b] ]The ARISS-Russia team headed by Sergei Samburov, RV3DR, first came up with the idea for SuitSat, and the concept was initially discussed extensively during the joint AMSAT Symposium/ARISS International Team meeting in October 2004.

This shows it isn't just a "Redneck" idea that happened one night after a few beers.
Anyone who seriously BELIEVES in the "Redneck Idea Theory", well, I'll just leave it at that...
Afterall, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you pee INTO the wind it will come back and splatter you, so it shouldn't take one to figure out that a little more then average planning went into this project.

Yes, I think even more planning could've gone into it, but they felt it was enough for a FIRST SHOT at what they wanted to learn. I look forward to any further attempts at testing they decide to do. You only fail if you don't try.

Beth
KD8CMV

KD5NCO

02-10-2006, 02:49 AM

Well you may well approach this exercise from the perspective of a child. #Your choice, and the Pollyanna's "pie in the sky" perspective certainly will continue the notion that as adults we are #goofy, ignorant, or wacko. And it is just that perspective that promotes furtherance of our current status as a bunch of "grumpy old men with an ancient HOBBY".
We ARS members here on QRZ are not all children (though we do need to recruit them) and most of our fraternity are accomplished adults in many varied fields. Most of us are thoughtful, analytical, observant and concerned.

It is a worthy discussion on the merits of this event.

There is much afoot relating to the ARS.

There are many of us vested deeply in the continuance of this fraternity.

There are important events and circumstance that offer great peril for this service in the next decade or two (if we survive this one).

This event had the potential to achieve some of the stated goals. Perhaps all of them. And Yes, this event could have gained us recognition, face time in the press, interest from schools and children.

It is disgusting to me that the suit sat seems to be so poorly though out and executed. I am similarly dismayed that the voices here that seek to accept this mediocre example of poor planing as successful.

Need I point out the shrill voices right here in this thread that demand all potential ARS members at least prove some code proficiency to be considered real Amateurs. The same voices (typed words really) also lament the "dumbing down of America" or the super easy "memorization only" ARS entrance and upgrade tests.

So why do you not apply the same high standards to this suit sat event? Why so many are willing to say in 2006 that "gee we learn from failure don't cha know!"

An 8th Grade student trying to do a electronics theory experiment can indeed learn from a reverse polarity fault or a miscalculation of capacitance or inductance.

But I am sorry folks, the sponsors of this suit sat exercise do not get a free pass from me and apparently Chip. These are professional experts and supposed to be the top folks in their fields. This is an inexcusable failure.

N1IR, Chip, simply watches these boards and adds his voice and experience in the hopes that some of us will wake up and realize that our very public behavior here, or in front of Congress, and even in the general public forum is under close scrutiny. He and I and several other QRZ izens seek to make the ARS regain the standing it once held in America and the World.

Each time the ARRL or some group of Amateurs does or says things that makes us loose stature and relevance, we are concerned.

The really disgusting phenomena is that some of you fail to accept constructive criticism, learned observation, and too frequently, when you fail to craft a decent dissenting opinion, many of you devolve to personal attacks and gibberish.

When is the last time any of you read through a thread and tried to see things from someone else's perspective. Have you ever once considered that it is OK to publicly proclaim that "Hey, he might be right" or " I never thought of it that way"? Is is too damned difficult to accept that others may have a different point of view and that some times their thoughts or observations are valid and worth considering?

Even if your only limited expectation of the ARS to you as an Amateur Radio operator is to use your privilege as a pastime or HOBBY, I think you are obligated to accept and respect that MANY of us see the ARS as a service for the betterment of America and her citizens.

Several of us sincerely believe that to remain relevant, and fend off the overt attempts to torpedo the ARS, we must be perceived by Industry, the Government, and Joe six pack as innovative, relevant, and a good value for the associated costs to provide us the privilege of the spectrum we demand and consume.

KD8CMV

02-10-2006, 03:05 AM

Quote[/b] (kc8vwm @ Feb. 09 2006,18:30)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Feb. 09 2006,18:19)]Quote[/b] ]vwm: Why is it that we must somehow relinquish ourselves to the mentality that we must gain instant gratification from actually hearing Suitsat on the air or else this entire project somehow becomes an instant (just add water) failure?

Because the whole goal was to be heard by regular folks on scanners. No special gizmotchy cubical helix mega-yagi needed. It FAILED to do that. It is a FAILURE! What is so hard to accept about that? I have personally learned great lessons from my failures. Lets learn a lesson from this. Next time they might get it right!!

Reminds me of giving "participation" trophies to kids who lose. They never learn the value of dealing with failure.
The only lesson that needs to be learned here is that "experiments" have no failures per se.

They are intended as a learning experience. That is the "gold" you win. That is to say, you don't teach kids that they are a failure if they try and don't succeed.

Failure is only part of the learning process toward a greater goal.

You just keep trying. That's the intended lesson here.

There is no failure in experiencing failure. It's simply part of the overall learning process.

Not everyone can win all of the time.

That's why there are called "experiments." That means there is a high probability of failure in the first place. It is expected.

I think kids already understand that. Probably better than most adults.
Thanks vwm, and exactly my point. At least some of us thinkers and doers out here understand that!

Sounds like someone never learned the value of teaching children properly. Those children not only learned the value of win, lose or draw, but they understand it far better then some adults, obviously. The child that cries in the corner because he lost and continues to do so every time after, and never learns a thing is the one who doesn't learn any lesson and doesn't care to. Then, they grow up to be an adult who is so afraid of losing, they don't try because they were never taught compassion...Possibly by the same adult who spats such ridiculous things from their mouths...

Beth
KD8CMV

KD8CMV

02-10-2006, 03:31 AM

Something I’m wondering.
For EVERY SINGLE PERSON in this thread that thinks this project was such a failure, why not conduct an experiment of your own.

Instead of saying (typing) how much all of these fine experienced people in charge of this project failed, why not send all of YOUR great ideas how this project WOULD’VE been a success STRAIGHT TO NASA? Not just your ideas, but your to be known 100% FACTS that are sitting in each of your heads, that WOULD PROVE to have been a project success.
Go ahead, do it. I’d like to see and read the results.

What?

You can’t send 100% FACTS…why is that?

O’, that’s right, because you don’t have the facts. At least, not until you’ve had the chance to test your facts. Well then, I suppose, we will just have to call all of those ideas, theories, things that need to be put to a test.

They already said it had been deliberated about since 2004.
Yes, it could’ve used more deliberating. But…but, if they didn’t get off their butt and try something, all they would be doing is wondering. Wondering, for how many years...how many years is sufficient?

How much more planning, money, materials, etc. should be put into this?

Can anyone that is not certified at NASA tell me that?

Is it possible, that it was put to a vote and the one who thought it needed more deliberating, etc. was out voted? Possibly, I don’t know since I don’t work they and have no idea how they decide this type of thing. I don’t pretend to and neither should you if you don’t.

Take your “Failure Theory” and all your other ones about this project to NASA…

Beth
KD8CMV

kg4kww

02-10-2006, 03:51 AM

Quote[/b] ]From AMSAT.ORG--Paraphrasing Mark Twain....the demise of SuitSat-1 is highly exaggerated!!

For SuitSAT Update see links below:

AMSAT.ORG (http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/index.php)

Latest Contact Log From SUITSAT.ORG (http://www.suitsat.org/results.cgi?n=99999)

http://www.space.com/images/h_exp12_eva2_toss_02.jpg

ky5u

02-10-2006, 03:59 AM

ROFL!!!

N0MUD

02-10-2006, 05:40 AM

Well makes one wonder I thought I heard it here in Colorado Springs, CO, as I heard someone talking and come to find out it was a HAM living in Divide, Colorado and he was using the Suitsat freq of 145.990 as a talking freq with one of his friends. Of course he did the smart thing and did a QSY, and he signed off using his Amateur Call Sign which I do have.

So I easily determined it wasn't the SuitSat that I was hearing but us aliens down here on Earth.

Hi Hi.....and NANO NANO.....

NØmud http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

ke5eiy

02-10-2006, 07:16 AM

Time to solve all of this mess. #I need everyone to donate your hard earned cash to send Chip (N1IR) and myself to the ISS. #Chip can put on another space suit, carry a radio with batteries of his choice, and armed with his little fractile antenna invention, I'll throw him out of the hatch to show you guys how a Phd can make this a successful experiment! #The entry into the atmosphere ought to be a site to behold! (smells like burning pork). #I'm just kidding here guys, I wouldn't throw a perfectly good space suit into the cold void of space, all the other junk yes, but not the suit. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #

Sorry Chip old man, just having a bit of fun at your expence. #Everyone needs to laugh a bit and stop taking things too seriously.

A lot of this nonsence posted on this thread has nothing to do with the #HOBBY of amateur radio. #It is just one individual, and Chip you started it, trying to prove how smart they are compared to the other. #Who really cares. #In a hundred years from now that intellegence will be dead and buried rotting in a hole in the ground. #You people need to get along and also enjoy our rather short life on this planet.

Here is some food for thought. # The guy who fixes your new car has maybe a high school education. #As an ASE certified mechanic, he makes upward of $70,000 a year in the larger cities, in some places even more. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

M3OQO

02-10-2006, 09:38 AM

Quote[/b] (ab8ma @ Feb. 09 2006,13:23)]
Volume is directly proportional to temperature in degrees kelvin, therefore the volume of all the matter at the start of the big bang must have been huge.

KI4NGN

02-10-2006, 11:21 AM

A measurement is the relative difference between values.

It is impossible to theorize about the birth and growth of the universe without using measurements.

Anything that can be measured has a center relative to the values being measured, whether it is 2, 3, or 11 dimensions.

K8ERV

02-10-2006, 11:55 AM

There is the idea that the presently known laws of physics may not have been valid for the bang, and that even light moved faster then.

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

PE1RDW

02-10-2006, 11:56 AM

The most amusing part of the discusion is that there are a lot of blaming the battery and temperature conditions while in practise suitsat is now opperating at twice it's expected life span and still reporting voltage levels near the start level.

There also doesn't seem to be a link between voltage and output power at the antenna otherwise signals would be hard when these voltages are reported.

Logic would indicate a failed antenna system of a type that makes the HT draw less power then predicted.

Who knows we might see suitsat working at it's current preformance untill it burns op, not bad for a junk battery in a junk spacesuit, then again the battery is in an external compartment isolated from heat or lack of heat inside the spacesuit where it was designed for.

AE4ZV

02-10-2006, 12:47 PM

Is it any wonder the stars are moving away from us? They are probably ticked off by Echolink and those stupid Morse code requirements in the amateur license exams!

(Sorry, guys, but somebody had to do it!)

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

w1yw

02-10-2006, 12:56 PM

The responses have been incredible.

You know, there are several people here who I have had lively disagreements with in the past. But we're big boys and girls; we've got passed it. No one expects the other to merely 'give in'. We expect to convince, inform, and shape the other.

Cool deluxe!

The problem here is that many of the comments from some posters indicate a deep amount of resentment, denial, and mistrust. And a profound measure of ignorance.

I find it eye-opening. I'm sure others do too.

But this is not a 'ham radio problem'--we have thousands of bright and skilled people in the service. Some of them have dropped into this forum topic. I admire them and I like them--even when we disagree. So what if we disagree?

What I think is dangerous is ignorance for ignorance sake. And I see LOTS of that attached to interest in Suitsat.

Perhaps IF Suitsat had resolved the ignorance issue for some, then we might be able to call it a SUCCESS. As it is, Suitsat not only was a failure, but it exposed some of the deep and even frightening failures of the amateur radio service.

How we proceed is simple and I will say it again: WHY NOT THE BEST?

That isn't some silly elitist quip. It means: Why aren't YOU the VERY BEST YOU can be?

That's how to make Suitsat a success. Turn the telescope on yourself.

I do it daily.

73,
Chip N1IR

w1yw

02-10-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote[/b] (KD8CMV @ Feb. 09 2006,20:31)]Something I’m wondering.
For EVERY SINGLE PERSON in this thread that thinks this project was such a failure, why not conduct an experiment of your own.

Instead of saying (typing) how much all of these fine experienced people in charge of this project failed, why not send all of YOUR great ideas how this project WOULD’VE been a success STRAIGHT TO NASA? Not just your ideas, but your to be known 100% FACTS that are sitting in each of your heads, that WOULD PROVE to have been a project success.
Go ahead, do it. I’d like to see and read the results.

What?

You can’t send 100% FACTS…why is that?

O’, that’s right, because you don’t have the facts. At least, not until you’ve had the chance to test your facts. Well then, I suppose, we will just have to call all of those ideas, theories, things that need to be put to a test.

They already said it had been deliberated about since 2004.
Yes, it could’ve used more deliberating. But…but, if they didn’t get off their butt and try something, all they would be doing is wondering. Wondering, for how many years...how many years is sufficient?

How much more planning, money, materials, etc. should be put into this?

Can anyone that is not certified at NASA tell me that?

Is it possible, that it was put to a vote and the one who thought it needed more deliberating, etc. was out voted? Possibly, I don’t know since I don’t work they and have no idea how they decide this type of thing. I don’t pretend to and neither should you if you don’t.

Take your “Failure Theory” and all your other ones about this project to NASA…

Beth
KD8CMV
Beth,

I target my comments for maximum positive impact. It is naive of you to assume that said comments do not get to NASA's door.

NASA has profound problems. Its main problem is project-itis: Putting the emphasis on projects rather than results. This is an open door for infinite money sinks. The SOFIA project is the latest example.

The world has so many other more important problems that some of us have to prioritize. NASA is not on my priority list at the moment. I still keep ARS on there for obvious reasons.

But you are naive to think I haven't had impact.

73,
Chip N1IR

w1yw

02-10-2006, 01:11 PM

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Feb. 09 2006,16:21)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Feb. 09 2006,12:04)]I am sorry you have so much pent-up anger. Please don't embarrass yourself by being public in focusing on a stranger in this way.

I didn't give you a challenging time in your past. I am not a surrogate for those educators you feel treated you poorly.

Thank you.
Yes, hooked once again.

And with absolutely no pent-up or active hostility or anger directed at you or any other person, your posts following my last just confirm my last.

You have done nothing but focus your superiority on strangers.

I am not in the least embarassed for the entire world to know that I believe you to be a sanctimonious putz.

You're welcome.
Unfortunately, calling me a piece of male anatomy does not solve your issues.

Why NOT the best???

w1yw

02-10-2006, 01:16 PM

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Feb. 10 2006,04:21)]A measurement is the relative difference between values.

It is impossible to theorize about the birth and growth of the universe without using measurements.

Anything that can be measured has a center relative to the values being measured, whether it is 2, 3, or 11 dimensions.
I am sorry that I have no other way of expressing this more clearly than I already have. All I can do is repeat it for your edification:

Cartography depends on dimensionality and dimension does not exist independent of matter-energy in this universe. There was no 'grid' that existed, upon which the universe suddenly popped into being. Maybe in Monty Python's Meaning of Life--but not in reality.

There is NO center of the universe.

w1yw

02-10-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote[/b] (KD5NCO @ Feb. 09 2006,19:49)]N1IR, Chip, simply watches these boards and adds his voice and experience in the hopes that some of us will wake up and realize that our very public behavior here, or in front of Congress, and even in the general public forum is under close scrutiny. He and I and several other QRZ izens seek to make the ARS regain the standing it once held in America and the World.

Each time the ARRL or some group of Amateurs does or says things that makes us loose stature and relevance, we are concerned.

The really disgusting phenomena is that some of you fail to accept constructive criticism, learned observation, and too frequently, when you fail to craft a decent dissenting opinion, many of you devolve to personal attacks and gibberish.

When is the last time any of you read through a thread and tried to see things from someone else's perspective. Have you ever once considered that it is OK to publicly proclaim that "Hey, he might be right" or " I never thought of it that way"? Is is too damned difficult to accept that others may have a different point of view and that some times their thoughts or observations are valid and worth considering?

Even if your only limited expectation of the ARS to you as an Amateur Radio operator is to use your privilege as a pastime or HOBBY, I think you are obligated to accept and respect that MANY of us see the ARS as a service for the betterment of America and her citizens.

Several of us sincerely believe that to remain relevant, and fend off the overt attempts to torpedo the ARS, we must be perceived by Industry, the Government, and Joe six pack as innovative, relevant, and a good value for the associated costs to provide us the privilege of the spectrum we demand and consume.
I always find it humbling to read Fred's comments. He is so much more compelling and clear than I am.

I think very carefully before I disagree with Fred to try to defend a position that may need changing.

So Fred is exhorting me AND you: 'why NOT the best'http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

And for those of you who (bizarrely) bash President Bush, let me remind you that this quote is from a Democratic president...

n1uq

02-10-2006, 02:33 PM

"What we have here is a failure to communicate" (Strother Martin as the "Captain" in "COOL HAND LUKE, 1967).

I wonder just how many scientific discoveries were discovered by mistakes and not by careful planning. (Chip, #you should enjoy doing the research on this).

It's not the contents of the information (and theories) being present here, No, instead it's the method in which they are being presented and yes Chip, you need to learn how to communicate with people without turning them off.

It's not the PHD's that make the "World go around", it's the common folk (and in this case I include everyone other than the elitists of the world, is Paris Hilton an elitist?) that make "Dreams into reality".

With all the education a PHD receives it still doesn't provide them with the ability to grasp the small things in life like the simple idea of SuitSAT, for them they will never understand the "Why" and the shame of it all is we are unable to explain it to them. So we, who make the "Dreams into reality", will have to enjoy this without them.

"But you are naive to think I haven't had impact", Chip, we don't really care (well, it least I don't). Could this be just another theory that you profess to be a fact?

"Why NOT the best???" Good question Chip, are you the best that you can be?

oops, sorry, had to fix a grammer mistake