Re: Off Topic, I Will Not Do This Often!!

From: jmfranke--- via Seesat-l <seesat-l_at_satobs.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:26:45 -0400
1. Different program managers have different opinions on allowing secondary, non-mission essential payloads and they are in charge.
2. University payloads have a history of being delivered late or not at all.
3. High concern over the safety to the primary payload versus no beneficial payback.
4. The program managers are against hard deadlines and do not have time or resources to "baby-sit" amateur or university projects for which there is no direct payback. 
5. Wasted time and effort designing special weights to serve as backups for payloads that are not delivered on time.  
6. More meetings - not enough time. 
7. Justifying allowing the load and then seeing a multi-million dollar failure.

You did ask for speculation, right!

John  WA4WDL


---- Charles Phillips via Seesat-l <seesat-l_at_satobs.org> wrote: 
> All -

 As a lurker...

Perhaps someone knows some illuminating information or speculation.

Why have Landsat and DMSP and some other flights NOT carried small satellites,
CubeSats, etc? They likely have plenty of performance, etc.

While NRO flights like the launch of USA 247, International Designator 2013-072
scattered subsatellites all over the place?

Launch of USA 238, International Designator 2012-048 - scattered many others. 

Any ideas?


Charles D Phillips
Intelligent Commercial Spaceflight
713-882-4578
www.intelligentcommercialspaceflight.com

_______________________________________________
Seesat-l mailing list
http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l



_______________________________________________
Seesat-l mailing list
http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l
Received on Tue Mar 24 2015 - 14:27:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Mar 24 2015 - 19:27:25 UTC