CUBESATS & Altruistic Radio Amateurs Allan Copland 7th August 2006
I'd imagine that most readers of this column will have read of the failure of the DNEPR converted ICBM that dumped the main payloads plus the largest package of CUBESATS in the desert 160Kms from the launch site after an early shutdown of the first stage motors.
Much has been made of this event on a number of BB's including QRZ.COM
The Dnepr is a SATAN SS-18 / R36-M silo based ICBM. Converted ICBM's are an accepted means of orbiting small payloads due to their (relatively) low cost. Reading the QRZ thread above, one could be forgiven for believing that Russian space know-how is somehow lacking but the truth is rather different. New American Atlas launchers now fly with Russian engines, a testament to their reliability, robustness and relative low cost.
I looked up the current global expendable rocket fleet, both in service and in development. I used www.spaceandtech.com as my primary reference.
Of the 30 vehicles I could find, six use recycled ICBM's or components.
Fourteen of the thirty vehicles on offer around the world use Russian stages or engines. I'd respectfully suggest that the main reasons for that are cost and performance. The US built Taurus also uses ICBM components (from the US Minuteman ICBM).
Seems like converted ICBM's will be around for quite a while yet.
------------------------------------------------------
Angara (Russian design, not yet flown)
* Dnepr (recycled SS-18)
* Eurockot (Recycled SS-18)
Kosmos 3M (Russian launcher)
Proton (Russian launcher)
* Shtil (SLBM...R-29M recycled)
Soyuz (Russian launcher)
* Start (Recycled Topol RT-2PM missile)
* Strela (Recycled SS-18)
Tsiklon (Russian launcher)
Zenit (Russian launcher)
Ariane 4 (European launcher)
Ariane 5 (European launcher)
Athena (US launcher solid motors)
Atlas II (US launcher / Russian RD-180 engines)
Atlas III (US Launcher / Russian RD-180 engines)
Atlas V (Us Launcher / Russian RD-180 engines)
Avrora/(Aurora- English) ( not yet flown... Soyuz variant)
Beal BA-2 (US design, private company.. not flown)
Delta II (US Design)
Delta III(US Design)
Delta IV(US Design using the new Rocketdyne RS-68 engine)
*Taurus (US Launcher, part ICBM)
Titan II (US launcher)
Titan IV (US launcher)
Pegasus (Orbital Sciences Corporation US, Air launched)
GSLV (Indian Launcher)
H-IIA (Japanese launcher)
J-1 (Japanese launcher)
Long March 3 (Chinese launcher)
------------------------------------------------------
Note that this list is not exhaustive. There are omissions.. but feel free to flame www.spaceandtech.com if you find anything missing.
Data in brackets was added by myself after cross referencing. Any errors you find there there are my fault and you know what to do about that.Back to Cubesats
The loss of the Dnepr led to much hand-wringing. While I have every sympathy for the students who lost their satellites through no fault of their own, I'm relieved that they didn't make it to orbit. These satellites have little to offer the average satellite enthusiast, being downlink only birds.
The use of amateur radio frequencies for University satellites started with UoSAT1 and has mushroomed to the stage we are at today with the Dnepr launch carrying no less than fifteen of these satellites masquerading as 'amateur radio satellites'.
This snippet was taken from an ARRL bulletin...
SB SPACE ARL ARLS005
ARLS005 Massive CubeSat launch fails
An attempt to launch 15 CubeSats from 11 universities and one
private company failed July 26. Fourteen of the CubeSats, now lost,
carried Amateur Radio transmit-only payloadsDoes placing an NBFM downlink transmitter tuned to one of the the amateur satellite allocations make a University satellite into an 'Amateur Radio satellite'? I'd suggest not.
When UoSAT1 was launched using 145.825Mhz followed soon after by UoSAT2 on 145.826Mhz a few people complained about it but the first documented article I ever read about this problem came from John Branegan GM4IHJ (SK) and is reproduced in part below.
Since then, Universities have seen the amateur radio satellite sub-bands as fair game for data collection. I also note that since SSTL went officially commercial, they have moved away from the amateur to commercial frequencies. One wonders why.
Here is an excerpt from SATGEN 268 dated 14th May 1994. |In the intervening twelve years since it was written , the rot has become entrenched. I totally agree with what John wrote in 1994. It has never had more relevance than now.
Satgen268 Altruistic Radio Amateurs by GM4IHJ 14 May 94 BID of this msg is SGEN268 Please use this BID if you retransmit this msg You do something which is of no great help to yourself, but which helps me greatly. Typical examples are the two dozen or so Oscar and Radio Sport satellites, which have allowed thousands of radio amateurs to enjoy the pleasure of satellite communications. Altruistic behaviour of this kind has been the corner stone of Amsat achievement to date. But times are changing . Many recent satellite launches appear to have very little to do with amateur radio, except that they use amateur radio frequency bands. These satellites are built by colleges and universities, apparently with little regard for the fact that they simple duplicate what college X did last year , and what very few people are using this year. There are of course exceptions. The University of Surrey store and forward digital birds have totally revolutionised international dissemination of amateur radio packet traffic. The original Uosats were crammed with excellent educational facilities, and Dove is very close to what the perfect education sat should be. But most of the rest of these college birds , either in space or going there shortly, have nothing of any real value to ordinary radio amateurs. A typical example has been announced recently. It will , according to one of its design team " Give project design and building experience to the College team ". It will carry Earth picture equipment and Navigation reporting facilities - items which already exist in other satellites , and which appear to attract only a very small number of users. There is no mention of provision of any facilities useful to the ordinary radio amateur . This process whereby an original success generates a generally unwanted stream of unemployed clones, is clearly not a useful way to utilize amateur radio facilities. I suggest that a good topic for Amsat University of Surrey 94 Colloquium discussion, should be a proposal that :- Any satellite using amateur radio frequencies , must in future deploy at least one mode of amateur voice/cw communications via a transponder, plus at least one amateur band beacon. These to be available on all orbits. By all means let College teams build satellites if they wish to. But these satellites should not use amateur radio frequencies unless they conform to the above provision of services for radio amateurs. Amsat must grasp this nettle . We are being taken for a ride, which will only be welcomed , if the college builders help us, as well as helping themselves.I couldn't agree more.73 Allan CoplandObservations