Huston We Have A Problem! - SuitSat is Dead

I keep forgetting to add this tid bit of history

http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin....hl=w6em

A thread on Suit Sat posted on 21 Sept 05 by M5AKA


Any way to all the folks who think this was thrown together in under 21 days... and thus a reasonable excuse exists for not doing due diligence to project planning...

I think that dog don't hunt

 

To keep it short, untill 3 weeks before flight certification ariss was told no.

 

I am still playing with the 'Ham Echo' notion.

I can find nothing in part 97 that would preclude using the ISS as a passive reflector for 2M comms (for example).

I did a sensititivity analysis and it appears that the ISS's possible RCS values allow reflector capabilities at the 20-50 watt level with a 5 element beam.

Before I actively encourage the use of "ISSECHO" can anyone give a practical reason why the ISS should not be used in that capacity?

I also ran some simple mutual visibility calculation, and I believe a 2000 km ground baseline path is possible.

So: all those with your hi gain systems--get crackin' and show a new way of Dx'ing!

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Chip, as long as you stay away from sat frequenties there should not be any problem at all, my sugestion would be just above or below the eme or ms segments.
It's not likely you can create any electrical problems with that ERP.

It was done with mir after it was abbandoned and worked rather wel.

btw. why bother to calculate when you can get life information about the coverage from a satalite tracking program?

 

It's fun to run the calculation yourself sometimes

--from scratch.

It forces you to think thru the problem and bring together apparently unrelated thoughts. That's how new ideas bear fruit.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

PE1RDW

Sir, I am terribly sorry that I choose not to go back to all the posts in the two or three threads on this subject and see how you have typically responded in this thread.

From you last post of only getting permission three weeks before the event I infer that you think the failure is OK based on not having enough time or too short a period of time to "think and plan for every thing"  if this is a misunderstanding of your meaning I am sorry. But I know there are folks in here that have that notion.

I am a Government employee and the projects I control currently effect about 1.4Billion of your hard earned tax dollars. I plan very comprehensive final product or service tests using live soldiers. The test results are used for final acquisition decisions by senior DoD leadership. (Think about things like armoured HUMVEES for example). Frequently I do not get final "go ahead" for the test event until Operational Test Readiness Review (OTRR) number 3 that is chaired by a one or two Star General and usually is held 48 hours before the test event. It would be irresponsible for me to not have my "test plan" complete, documented, reviewed, vetted, tested, refined, re-reviewed, and a final pilot test conducted, including the full exercise of the "results" database. I conduct a complete walk through or "rock drill" as we call it in the military before this OTRR. These simple yet complex and comprehensive procedures give me the confidence to stand up at the OTRR and tell my leadership that my team is ready to go and probability of success is very high.

I do NOT have any evidence that this did not happen with the Suit Sat project. However it does seem to me that some part of the pre-planning procedures were not comprehensive enough to prevent the problem the Suit Sat is having with transmitting enough power to be easily acquired and heard with simple receiver and antennas, (a stated goal).

I am not calling for any body's head for this attempt just expressing my disappointment.

I still actively listen, enjoy building/ buying gear, experimenting, sharing my Sat experiences with new Hams, and having fun. I also monetarily support AMSAT and ARISS.

Final shot.... This was not conducted by a High school Amateur Radio Club. These are professionals on the project and I think they had a great idea, just poor execution.  I don't think any one here is "gleefully" enjoying the failure (or lack of complete success). But a few of us object to the project being characterized as a shining, full, or complete success. It was not, learn, move on, and try again.

 

I guess a person can successfully use fear as a means to suppress responses to, perhaps, the same type of alleged activity coming from them. I believe that was my point.

Oh, well. Let history serve as a reminder, once again, to those who wish to avoid suffering the same consequences themselves.

Of course, all of this could be (and could have been) avoided through proper choice of words and agreements to disagree. Or, just ignore the offered "expertise."
Pity.

 

Lee,

You have a right to protect your reputation, and so do I.

Making sure someone is familiar with a process to ensure that right is not motivated by an attempt to threaten nor induce fear. It is motivated by protection of that right.

I am very sorry that you do not get this.

Wishing you the best from chilly Boston.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Yes.

That's definitely it.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Hello again, NCO.

Well, I'm somewhat puzzled by the link. Are you implying that my example(s) of government waste and a manufacturing error were applicable here? Perhaps, although, I have no specific evidence that there have been similar decisions made in relation to this subject.

I find it puzzling that you keep blithering us with the magnitude of your government project responsibilities.
How does that relate to the discussion?

No doubt, NASA has levels of authority and responsibility that must approve missions and subcomponents of those missions. And, I would gather that they would have been given legitimate justification for the project (for it to have been authorized).

Perhaps we should ajourn to discuss Chip's suggestion to attempt to use ISS as a passive reflector. I'll do a little research of my own. I do recall that the FCC restricts RF emissions in proximity to certain government activities. Not only its own monitoring stations, but in substantial perimeters surrounding numerous DOD installations. These restrictions limit amateur radio activity for good reason. Perhaps the FCC needs to be made aware of the intention to use ISS as a passive reflector.

W6EM

 

Lee,

You are out of line on this.

Fred made no such statements that could be construed in that way on this topic.

Why are you making this false statement and assertion?

Why is Fred not allowed to voice his opinion on this matter?

IMO, your comment is of the same nature as the very point we both discussed.

OM, please learn from others. In this case I can guarantee it will make you a happier person.

 

Actually,

I think that would be very helpful.

FYI, the ISS is very much in the far field for the installations I mention.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Look at it logicaly, the power levels chip is talking about is far less then hams are throwing at ISS already, especialy when a crewmember is actively using the ham station.

100 watt in a 20 dbi antenna is nothing strange, this is offcourse not the power that is needed to work ISS but the power that some use to cut trough the pileup, in fact I have worked ISS and MIR packet with nothing more then a TH-D7 with the stock antenna (roughly 3 or 4 watt erp)

when it comes to that working ISS is like working peter island, the one that gets heard is the one that makes the qso.

 

Chip:

Take off your shades, and see the light.

Why was it important for NCO to post a link to my earlier post?  I can only assume he did so since it involved significant government waste, and a design defect in a large NASA project.  Or, did it have some other purpose?

Suddenly, out of context, NCO tells all that he is a government employee and manages a multibillion dollar project.  I'd call that "blithering" any day of the week.  What purpose did it serve?  I didn't say he didn't have a right to say it.  You seem to imply that I said that.  I did not.  I just don't think it matters to the case in point.

The suitsat project no doubt has/had a reasonable purpose to have been permitted to happen.  As he said, let's learn from what worked and what didn't.  That's not an example of government waste.  Even if it were, it certainly isn't of the same magnitude that my remarks clipped by NCO pertain to.

73, from warmer-than-Boston Birmingham.

Lee

 

Guilty. And regretful.