[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

AO-40 problems Back to futur

Here is the first messages i got when i come up on this reflector. The debate at that time was on AO-40 
reliability. Dont want to throw oil on fires but its BACK TO FUTUR again, Discussions about AO-40 reliability 
has been invoke numerous time...and!...and!... ALL IS OK ALL IS FINE the show must go on.

As the true nature of AMSAT BOD seems to come up when they feel some pressure and as so gently wrote by Mr. 
Rick Hambly W2GPS

"There are a few messages like yours spinning aimlessly around in amsat-bb so
I picked yours to answer. First let me say that AMSAT Board members and
Officers often do not read amsat-bb messages because of the quantity and the
low "signal to noise" of the content of many of the messages.  If you want
their attention address your messages to them."


Is it a good idea to called up an "INDEPENDENT" AO-40 accident investigating board (AOAIB-40) not to find 
culprits but to learn from experience and cleared up the real facts about the whole AO-40 venture. 

17 dec 2000

With all due respect to the amsat P3D team....

After reading the status reports on the amsat web site it looks like P3D was
launched with known problems, ie. critical valves not opening and closing,
software glitches, rounding errors large enough that the spin of the bird
couldn't be changed.  I wonder if the launch team put the complaints of the
amateur community over launch delays ahead safety and reliability of the
bird, eh?

(flame suit on)

Kevin, WB5RUE

Kevin Muenzler WB5RUE wrote:on 17 dec 2000
> But you'd think that something like this would have not been sent
> up with known problems.  Especially something like a fuel control
> valve that failed during testing.  I guess enough bending and
> hammering got it to work for the test.  They called it "nominal"
> which I guess was enough for the "stock holders" (YOU AND ME.)
> http://www.amsat.org/amsat/news/ans2000/ans00348.html

Kevin, I'm confused.  I looked at the URL you provided, and THIS is
what caught my eye:

  "We experienced a similar problem during the test phase of
   P3D, and one of the helium valves was repaired as a

In case it isn't clear to you why this caught my eye, let me repeat
a part of that quote with a little emphasis:

   "...and one of the helium valves WAS REPAIRED"

The bird was tested.  A part failed.  It was repaired.  And you
consider that "...sending it up with a known problem..." ??????

A lot of parts failed during testing.  AFIK, all the known problems
were fixed before launch.  What evidence do you have that the bird
was launched with any "known problems"?

Or are you taking the position that because a part failed, such a part
must never be used again, or that the flight should never occur?
That's kind of like saying that rubber automobile tires are known to
occasionally fail, and failure sometimes leads to serious injury or
death of the driver or passengers.  Therefore all automobile
manufacturers must immediately stop building cars that depend on the
defective technology of pneumatic rubber tires.   Seeeshh!!!!!!

Luc Leblanc VE2DWE
Coordonnateur AMSAT pour le Québec
Quebec AMSAT coordinator
Sites web sites: www.qsl.net/ve2dwe

Echolink node 115340 VE2DWE-L
Echolink node 101810 VE2DWE

P.O. Box 341
Sorel-Tracy  QC.
J3P 5T6

Due to spam mail proliferation The following extensions are automaticly killed before reading

En raison de la prolifération des "pourriels" les extensions suivantes sont détruites automatiquement avant 


Sent via amsat-bb@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org