| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 22.08.09 19:47l 1173 Lines 39188 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 61827-CX2SA
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V4 419
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<ON0AR<HS1LMV<CX2SA
Sent: 090822/1745Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:61827 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:61827-CX2SA
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio (John Geiger)
2. Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio (David McKenzie)
3. Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio (Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF)
4. Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio (John Geiger)
5. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS, MM (Tim Lilley)
6. Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio (K7WIN - Jeff)
7. SS-2 (Howie DeFelice)
8. Re: SS-2 (Tim Lilley)
9. Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio (Alan P. Biddle)
10. Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio (Jeff KB2M)
11. Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio (Alan P. Biddle)
12. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) (Rocky Jones)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 06:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Geiger <aa5jg@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
To: Jeff Yanko <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <712711.69332.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Too bad that 222 and 902mhz can't be offered as optinal modules.
73s John AA5JG
--- On Sat, 8/22/09, Jeff Yanko <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> From: Jeff Yanko <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
> To: "Simon (HB9DRV)" <simon@xxxxxx.xx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Date: Saturday, August 22, 2009, 4:17 AM
> OK.? Wasn't sure of the VHF
> bands available in Europe.? 70 mHz always stuck
> in my mind because I recall seeing it occasionally on the
> European Packet
> Clusters.? At first, I kept thinking somebody is
> typing in the wrong
> frequency.? I guess not!
>
>
> 73,
>
> Jeff? WB3JFS
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon (HB9DRV)" <simon@xxxxxx.xx>
> To: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>;
> <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 2:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
>
>
> > 70MHz is used but 50MHz is much more common.
> >
> > Simon Brown, HB9DRV
> > www.ham-radio-deluxe.com
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
> >
> >
> >> FB on 50 Mhz.? Is the 70 mHz band used more
> in the European ham theatre?
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx.
> Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur
> satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:34:34 -0400
From: David McKenzie <kb1fsy@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
To: John Geiger <aa5jg@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<ce64a0490908220634l31707089jb22846c770cb29b8@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
No buttons for 144, 432, 1296?
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 9:27 AM, John Geiger <aa5jg@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Too bad that 222 and 902mhz can't be offered as optinal modules.
>
> 73s John AA5JG
>
> --- On Sat, 8/22/09, Jeff Yanko <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> > From: Jeff Yanko <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
> > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
> > To: "Simon (HB9DRV)" <simon@xxxxxx.xx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> > Date: Saturday, August 22, 2009, 4:17 AM
> > OK. Wasn't sure of the VHF
> > bands available in Europe. 70 mHz always stuck
> > in my mind because I recall seeing it occasionally on the
> > European Packet
> > Clusters. At first, I kept thinking somebody is
> > typing in the wrong
> > frequency. I guess not!
> >
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Jeff WB3JFS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Simon (HB9DRV)" <simon@xxxxxx.xx>
> > To: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>;
> > <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 2:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
> >
> >
> > > 70MHz is used but 50MHz is much more common.
> > >
> > > Simon Brown, HB9DRV
> > > www.ham-radio-deluxe.com
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
> > >
> > >
> > >> FB on 50 Mhz. Is the 70 mHz band used more
> > in the European ham theatre?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx.
> > Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur
> > satellite program!
> > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:47:49 +0000
From: Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4A8FF705.8000405@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
They can but as it would only be of use to the US market, it will need a US
manufacturer to develop and sell them.
The radio probably only has the internal space for one module so some design
of intelligent outboard transverter is the
way to go.
John Geiger wrote:
> Too bad that 222 and 902mhz can't be offered as optinal modules.
>
> 73s John AA5JG
>
> --- On Sat, 8/22/09, Jeff Yanko <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>> From: Jeff Yanko <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
>> To: "Simon (HB9DRV)" <simon@xxxxxx.xx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>> Date: Saturday, August 22, 2009, 4:17 AM
>> OK. Wasn't sure of the VHF
>> bands available in Europe. 70 mHz always stuck
>> in my mind because I recall seeing it occasionally on the
>> European Packet
>> Clusters. At first, I kept thinking somebody is
>> typing in the wrong
>> frequency. I guess not!
>>
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Jeff WB3JFS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Simon (HB9DRV)" <simon@xxxxxx.xx>
>> To: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>;
>> <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
>> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 2:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
>>
>>
>>> 70MHz is used but 50MHz is much more common.
>>>
>>> Simon Brown, HB9DRV
>>> www.ham-radio-deluxe.com
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
>>>
>>>
>>>> FB on 50 Mhz. Is the 70 mHz band used more
>> in the European ham theatre?
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx.
>> Opinions expressed are those of the author.
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur
>> satellite program!
>> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.64/2318 - Release Date: 08/21/09
18:06:00
>
--
Nigel A. Gunn, 1865 El Camino Drive, Xenia, OH 45385-1115, USA. tel +1 937
825 5032
Amateur Radio G8IFF W8IFF (was KC8NHF), e-mail nigel@xxxxx.xxx www
http://www.ngunn.net
Member of ARRL, GQRP #11396, QRPARCI #11644, SOC #548, Flying Pigs QRP Club
International #385,
Dayton ARA #2128, AMSAT-NA LM-1691, AMSAT-UK 0182, MKARS, ALC,
GCARES, XWARN.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 06:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Geiger <aa5jg@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <952298.81604.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Plenty of countries besides the US can use 222mhz-all of region 2 plus Somalia
in region 1. Not sure about 902 but I know that the US, Canada, and Somalia
can use it.
73s John AA5JG
--- On Sat, 8/22/09, Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> From: Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Date: Saturday, August 22, 2009, 8:47 AM
> They can but as it would only be of
> use to the US market, it will need a US manufacturer to
> develop and sell them.
> The radio probably only has the internal space for one
> module so some design of intelligent outboard transverter is
> the
> way to go.
>
> John Geiger wrote:
> > Too bad that 222 and 902mhz can't be offered as
> optinal modules.
> >
> > 73s John AA5JG
> >
> > --- On Sat, 8/22/09, Jeff Yanko <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Jeff Yanko <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
> >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF
> Radio
> >> To: "Simon (HB9DRV)" <simon@xxxxxx.xx>,
> amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> >> Date: Saturday, August 22, 2009, 4:17 AM
> >> OK.? Wasn't sure of the VHF
> >> bands available in Europe.? 70 mHz always
> stuck
> >> in my mind because I recall seeing it occasionally
> on the
> >> European Packet
> >> Clusters.? At first, I kept thinking somebody
> is
> >> typing in the wrong
> >> frequency.? I guess not!
> >>
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >> Jeff? WB3JFS
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Simon (HB9DRV)" <simon@xxxxxx.xx>
> >> To: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>;
> >> <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
> >> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 2:13 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF /
> SHF Radio
> >>
> >>
> >>> 70MHz is used but 50MHz is much more common.
> >>>
> >>> Simon Brown, HB9DRV
> >>> www.ham-radio-deluxe.com
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> FB on 50 Mhz.? Is the 70 mHz band
> used more
> >> in the European ham theatre?
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx.
> >> Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> >> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the
> amateur
> >> satellite program!
> >> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> >>
> >
> >
> >? ? ???
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx.
> Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the
> amateur satellite program!
> > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.64/2318 -
> Release Date: 08/21/09 18:06:00
> >
>
> --
> Nigel A. Gunn,? 1865 El Camino Drive, Xenia, OH
> 45385-1115, USA.? tel +1 937 825 5032
> Amateur Radio G8IFF W8IFF (was KC8NHF),? e-mail nigel@xxxxx.xxxx
> ? ???www? http://www.ngunn.net
> Member of? ARRL, GQRP #11396, QRPARCI #11644, SOC
> #548,? Flying Pigs QRP Club International #385,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? Dayton ARA #2128,
> AMSAT-NA LM-1691,? AMSAT-UK 0182, MKARS,? ALC,
> GCARES, XWARN.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx.
> Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur
> satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 07:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tim Lilley <n3tl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS, MM
To: MM <ka1rrw@xxxxx.xxx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <572411.15603.qm@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hi Miles,
Thank you for this response - especially for the persoective it provides. As I
mentioned in my last post, I was off the air and totally away from amateur
radio for more than 15 years. As a result, I had no knowledge of? how
operations from Mir occurred. I appreciate having this information because it
helps me to understand how things have progressed in terms of amateur
communications with various manned orbiting stations.
Because I haven't been active throughout the entire time frame, I can only
draw on my personal experiences over the past 14 months when it comes to
overall interest in communications with the ISS. I am having a tough time
accepting the veracity of your statement that interest in communication with
and through the ISS has diminished. I have made 116 voice contacts with and
through the ISS since Richard's visit to the station last October. I and
others have commented among ourselves at the significant number of calls we
have heard only through the ISS voice repeater. I believe interest
remains?strong, and dare say that oportunities for two-way contacts are the
reason.
We are on different sides of the SSTV fence; and, of course, neither of us
will change the other's mind about the relative merits of one mode over the
other when there is only one radio station aboard the ISS for use in amateur
communications. I cannot personally support the plans you propose because I do
not believe they represent the most effective use of the communications gear
available on the ISS. The kind of exchanges you described between the ISS and
a ground station - both set up for SSTV - inevitably will decrease
opportunities for two-way contacts because of the time each SSTV transmission
consumes. Given its lower orbit and resulting smaller footprint, ISS passes
are inherently the shortest-duration passes of all the amateur satellites we
have available. SSTV represents the longest-duration mode of operation to and
from the ISS in terms of completing a two-way contact - and a one-way
transmission, as far as that goes. In that regard, it is the
most inefficient mode available for use. I can't support proposals that
advocate using what precious time is available for amateur radio communication
via the ISS to enable a mode that inarguably decreases the opportunity for
contacts, either among amateur ground stations (via the repeater) or among
ground stations and the crews.
I will continue to participate in ARISS activities regardless of their form. I
would prefer that form not include significant SSTV activity for reasons I've
stated here and in my earlier email.
73 to all,
Tim - N3TL
?
________________________________
From: MM <ka1rrw@xxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx Tim Lilley <n3tl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 9:56:04 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS, MM
Hi Tim:
Thank you for your comments.
I am always open to new ideas and I welcome your questions and observations.
I plan on posting some suggestions on how to use the Existing Hardware on ISS
to try to please as many hams and SWL as possible.?
We can?t make everyone happy.
I feel there has been a loss of interest in ISS amateur Radio.? Our ham
projects over the past 10 years have not grabbed very much public or ham
interest (with the exception of School Schedules).
To restore interest in ISS we need to have more than 1 project running at a
time.
We also need projects that are exciting to a larger audience.
If we continue to use our valuable launches to ISS for Short-term projects,
then ISS will say a dull boring and wasted platform for amateur radio
experimentation.
The project that will generate the most positive press and public enthusiasm
is SSTV.? Of course I am going to push this project, not just because it?s a
Marex project, but because of the great news stores we received during the Mir
version of SSTV.?
SSTV will generate good Press and TV new clips.
SSTV will generate interests from the SWL (and they out number ham by at least
10 to1)
Mode Change to SSTV:
I do not believe that switching from packet to SSTV would reduce the number of
random public voice contacts.? On the contrary, from my experience with
previous Mir and ISS crews running SSTV, the number random public voice
contacts increased.
Commander Pavel Vinogradov in July August 2006 would be on Voice, asking ?Did
you seem my SSTV pictures??
During Richard Garriott?s Mission in October 2008, he used both Voce and
SSTV.? He was often interested in knowing how well people liked his images.?
He would have sent more images, however he had technical difficulties with the
Vox box causing the TM-D700 too repeatedly get stuck transmitting.? He also
said there was a shortage of AA batteries for the Kenwood Communicator VCH1.
In my experience with multiple SSTV crews, SSTV will increased your
opportunity to talk to the crews on Voice.
Ideally I would like to see SpaceCam1 SSTV activated for 3-4 consecutive
months in a row.? I do not want to see SSTV turned on for 1-2 days per month.
We need a consecutive run to build up momentum. This would mean turning off
Packet for a few months.? The reason for this mode change experiment would be
the following:
Build up a world wide following of SSTV users (both Amateur Radio and SWL)
Get more Schools involved to act as geography receiving stations.
Point future and existing User?s to an ARISS/AMSAT web page to learn how to
SSTV, etc.
Tell the News and Magazine about the project.? We had great press coverage
with Mir SSTV.
ISS Crew Time:? MM
The Station is currently manned with 3 people.? That number will be increasing
in 2009 to a crew of 5-6 (in theory).? At the present time the ISS crew has no
free time..? It will be hard to add more Public Voice Access to ISS with a 3
man crew..
We hope Public Voice activities will improve when the crew expands to 5-6
crewmembers.
My plan is to run SSTV and voice on the same world wide channel pair.
(Let?s not get into frequency politics at this time.)
In August 1996 when we made ARISS, I asked Guest speaker Astronaut Linda
Godwin, what she wanted for ham projects.? She said ?She wanted to see the
faces of the people she was talking with ?.
Based on Linda?s suggestion, with help of Farrell Winder, W8ZCF and Dr. Don
Miller, W9NTP, we delivered SSTV to Mir in 15 months.? The Mir crew loved the
system and were frequently seen floating in front of the Camera sending
picture to Earth.
Here is how I envision SSTV operations on ISS.
The crew has SpaceCam1 running in automatic slide show mode.? The volume on
the TM-D700 is turned OFF.? The crew has a break and goes over to the radio,
turns up the volume and calls CQ and starts chatting.
If the person he is talking to has SSTV, then they can exchange two way
images.
All images set to ISS can be automatically stored to disk.
If the user has a SSTV program that supports ?SID?, then his call sign becomes
part of the file name automatically.
SpaceCam1 SSTV is a win win project for everyone.
Packet on ISS:
I am a big fan of Packet.? I have been a strong supporter for packet on ISS
since we first began planning ISS in August 1996.? The existing TM-700 is a
very good voice radio.? The TM-D700 is a weak packet engine.? The packet
engine in the TM-D700 is limited in its abilities.? The TM-D700 can perform
the basic packet duties, but it?s just not as good as a dedicated packet
engine such as the KPC product lines.? The TM-D700 does have a few operating
system packet bugs that we can not fix (Forces every packet mail line to be
acknowledged, etc).
To make matters worse, the TM-D700 User editable settings were setup wrong in
2003, which rendered Packet Mail unusable and slowed down the unproto link
(APRS).
Bob Bruninga did rewrite User editable settings for the TM-D700 in 2007, which
I tested and gave a thumbs up.? As far as I know, the fixed software has still
not been installed on either of the two ISS TM-D700 systems.
So until the TM-D700 software is uploaded the packet mail will not work.? And
even when it is enabled, due to other issues with the OS, the Packet Mail
Single-User throughput is only half that of an External TNC.
With an unusable mailbox the thrill of ISS Packet has been reduced.? We did
have some fun with ISS PacCom / Ericsson Packet Mail system in 2002 for about
1 year.? The Ericsson system was shutdown in December 2003.. The location of
the ISS Ericsson packet system is unknown.
http://www.marexmg.org/fileshtml/packetmail.html
How many APRS users are currently operating ISS?
I assume that Bob Bruninga maybe able to peruse his APRS logs for the past few
years and count how many different call signs use ISS APRs per year.? That
information will be helpful in knowing just how many people actually use ISS
APRS.? I will help us plan projects for the future.
Cross Band Repeater with the TM-D700:
The TMD700 is a basic dual band radio that also has a Cross band repeater
mode.? It is not a heavy-duty high quality cross band repeater.? Those of us
that have used the TM-D700 in cross band mode from ISS have been disappointed
in its performance.
The Audio is poor.
The receiver has capture issues.
Overall it is not as easy to use as Oscar-51 or Oscar-27
The very short duration contest style contacts are not very popular.
We have had overheating problems in the past with the TM-D700 on ISS while
running high duty unattended modes.? All electronics run hotter in space.
Commander Pavel Vinogradov, moved the TM-D700 from its mounting tray to an
open ceiling panel to help keep the radio cooler.
Efficiencies of ARISS teams:? MM
Your observation are correct, depending on which ARISS team manages the
project determines how fast a project will fly.
All ARISS project have to go through ARISS-Russia.? The ARISS Russian team
actually works in the Russian space agencies.?
If a project is designed by ARISS-Russian, that project can fly in less than 2
years.
Some of the reason are, the ARISS-Russian teams know the flight safety
requirements and can generate the tests and approvals faster than the other
ARISS teams.
The ARISS-Russian teams like to use Off-the-Shelf hardware for faster
delivery.
The other ARISS teams need to lean to be as efficient as the ARISS-Russian
team.
The Suit-Sat1 project is a good example of efficiency.? I am not sure who had
the idea first, but it did proceed fast.? ARISS-Russia liked the idea and had
the spacesuit and antenna all ready in stock, NO development time.
ARISS-North America, used an Off-the-Shelf radio and only had to build the
Turn-On safety timer and PIC controller board.?
I do not know exactly how many moths, but it was quick and used several
existing components, Space Suit, Spare ARISS ham antenna,? Off the shelf
Radio.
The Suit-Sat-2 project is all custom built from scratch using all new
technology.? It?s been almost 4 years and counting.
Efficiency is the key.? ARISS needs to follow ARISS-Russians lead in
efficiency.? And still maintain full flight safely requirements.
Better Home for SuitSat-2:
I never suggested Abandoning SuitSat-2, what I am recommending is that
SuitSat-2 be placed on a rocket for a higher orbit.
We only have a hand full of flight opportunities left to get projects on ISS.
Our opinions may differ and that?s fine.? I just believe that with the few
launches to ISS remaining we should be devoted to longer-term project for the
Amateur Radio and SWL communities.
Thank you for your comments Tim.
I hope this helped
Sincerely
Miles WF1F
Wf1f@xxxxxxx.xxx
? ? ?
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 07:32:01 -0700
From: "K7WIN - Jeff" <k7win@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
To: "'John Geiger'" <aa5jg@xxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, "'Nigel
Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF'" <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <001801ca2335$506dc350$f14949f0$@xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I think there is actually a list to discuss the IC-9100 and its
capabilities.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ic9100/
73,
Jeff - K7WIN
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of John Geiger
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 6:57 AM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
Plenty of countries besides the US can use 222mhz-all of region 2 plus
Somalia in region 1. Not sure about 902 but I know that the US, Canada, and
Somalia can use it.
73s John AA5JG
--- On Sat, 8/22/09, Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> From: Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Date: Saturday, August 22, 2009, 8:47 AM
> They can but as it would only be of
> use to the US market, it will need a US manufacturer to
> develop and sell them.
> The radio probably only has the internal space for one
> module so some design of intelligent outboard transverter is
> the
> way to go.
>
> John Geiger wrote:
> > Too bad that 222 and 902mhz can't be offered as
> optinal modules.
> >
> > 73s John AA5JG
> >
> > --- On Sat, 8/22/09, Jeff Yanko <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Jeff Yanko <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
> >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF
> Radio
> >> To: "Simon (HB9DRV)" <simon@xxxxxx.xx>,
> amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> >> Date: Saturday, August 22, 2009, 4:17 AM
> >> OK.? Wasn't sure of the VHF
> >> bands available in Europe.? 70 mHz always
> stuck
> >> in my mind because I recall seeing it occasionally
> on the
> >> European Packet
> >> Clusters.? At first, I kept thinking somebody
> is
> >> typing in the wrong
> >> frequency.? I guess not!
> >>
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >> Jeff? WB3JFS
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Simon (HB9DRV)" <simon@xxxxxx.xx>
> >> To: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>;
> >> <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
> >> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 2:13 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF /
> SHF Radio
> >>
> >>
> >>> 70MHz is used but 50MHz is much more common.
> >>>
> >>> Simon Brown, HB9DRV
> >>> www.ham-radio-deluxe.com
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> FB on 50 Mhz.? Is the 70 mHz band
> used more
> >> in the European ham theatre?
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx.
> >> Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> >> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the
> amateur
> >> satellite program!
> >> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> >>
> >
> >
> >? ? ???
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx.
> Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the
> amateur satellite program!
> > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.64/2318 -
> Release Date: 08/21/09 18:06:00
> >
>
> --
> Nigel A. Gunn,? 1865 El Camino Drive, Xenia, OH
> 45385-1115, USA.? tel +1 937 825 5032
> Amateur Radio G8IFF W8IFF (was KC8NHF),? e-mail nigel@xxxxx.xxxx
> ? ???www? http://www.ngunn.net
> Member of? ARRL, GQRP #11396, QRPARCI #11644, SOC
> #548,? Flying Pigs QRP Club International #385,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? Dayton ARA #2128,
> AMSAT-NA LM-1691,? AMSAT-UK 0182, MKARS,? ALC,
> GCARES, XWARN.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx.
> Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur
> satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:33:17 -0400
From: Howie DeFelice <howied231@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] SS-2
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <BAY142-W930EB4CE8740D22E02959E7FB0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I agree with "the Bobs" and others that you have to play the cards you're
dealt and be part of the solution. Allot of people put many hours of time,
effort and their own money into AMSAT and I certainly thank them all.
I disagree that we should abandon the "HEO fetish" as it was put. At the
moment it seems unlikely there will ever be another AO-40 but there could be
opportunities for ride shares to higher orbits. But for that to remain even a
remote possibility, we need to "be in the game". By continuing to be a visible
member of the space community we enhance our chances of finding new
opportunities for transport to space. We must continue to be flexible and
adapt to whatever opportunity comes along. I think that is exactly where AMSAT
has been moving.
This may be a dum question but, since so much effort has gone into building
SuitSat-2, why are we throwing it out the ISS door? It appears we have
multiple unused antenna ports on the ISS. If we connected SS-2 to one of those
it will stay in orbit a long time, we don't need to repackage it to survive
space or put in batteries. I'm sure there would be a process to make that
happen not to mention maybe install an antenna. Even if it took another year
to make happen, wouldn't it be worth it?
Howie AB2S
_________________________________________________________________
Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you.
http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToS
chool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tim Lilley <n3tl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SS-2
To: Howie DeFelice <howied231@xxxxxxx.xxx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <635113.18801.qm@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Howie,
I don't know all of the obstacles involved, but your suggestion is the best
one I've heard during the course of the SuitSat-2 discussion this week. The
trade-off, of course, will be a lower orbit/smaller footprint, with passes
that are a couple of minutes shorter than those of the current FM LEO
satellites. Here, I?em definitely?willing to accept that to have
another?amateur-communications platform?with multiple operation modes go
active with the probability that it would stay active for at least a few
years.
Thank you for this post.
73 to all,
Tim - N3TL
________________________________
From: Howie DeFelice <howied231@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 10:33:17 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] SS-2
I agree with "the Bobs" and others that you have to play the cards you're
dealt and be part of the solution. Allot of people put many hours of time,
effort and their own money into AMSAT and I certainly thank them all.
I disagree that we should abandon the "HEO fetish" as it was put. At the
moment it seems unlikely there will ever be another AO-40 but there could be
opportunities for ride shares to higher orbits. But for that to remain even a
remote possibility, we need to "be in the game". By continuing to be a visible
member of the space community we enhance our chances of finding new
opportunities for transport to space. We must continue to be flexible and
adapt to whatever opportunity comes along. I think that is exactly where AMSAT
has been moving.
This may be a dum question but, since so much effort has gone into building
SuitSat-2, why are we throwing it out the ISS door? It appears we have
multiple unused antenna ports on the ISS. If we connected SS-2 to one of those
it will stay in orbit a long time, we don't need to repackage it to survive
space or put in batteries. I'm sure there would be a process to make that
happen not to mention maybe install an antenna. Even if it took another year
to make happen, wouldn't it be worth it?
Howie AB2S
_________________________________________________________________
Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you.
http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToS
chool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:02:19 -0500
From: "Alan P. Biddle" <APBIDDLE@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <07376332372E4F849CB56CE591463DE2@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Yaesu has had at least a notional design for a replacement to the FT-847 for
some time, but has been holding off going forward until there are new
satellites which will increase demand. If this does well, perhaps Yaesu
will reconsider.
Alan
WA4SCA
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:31:38 -0400
From: "Jeff KB2M" <kb2m@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <00a601ca2346$061b5d60$12521820$@xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
A couple of years ago while working the AMSAT booth at the Boxboro Mass
hamfest, I was chatting with Chip Margelli (who at the time still worked for
Yaesu). I asked him when is Yaesu going to come out with a new satellite
rig? Being Chip, he quickly replied with a question of his own. When are you
guys going to launch another satellite? I think this answers your question
on a new Sat rig from Yaesu!
I think it's great that Icom is coming out with a replacement for the 910
with IF DSP. I might consider picking one up, but my main interest right now
is in the upcoming FLEX-5000 VHF/UHF full duplex Upgrade. This will be the
ultimate satellite rig.....
73 Jeff kb2m
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Alan P. Biddle
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 12:02 PM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
Yaesu has had at least a notional design for a replacement to the FT-847 for
some time, but has been holding off going forward until there are new
satellites which will increase demand. If this does well, perhaps Yaesu
will reconsider.
Alan
WA4SCA
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:41:12 -0500
From: "Alan P. Biddle" <APBIDDLE@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
To: "'Jeff KB2M'" <kb2m@xxxxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <F137AB4E6FFA4CAF91D97DB50A230330@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jeff,
Actually, the question I asked is whether the "Chip Doctrine" might now be
changed, not the least reason being that Chip has moved on. Also, I count
more than a few satellites launched recently, though none are P3.
However, like you, I am holding out for the Flex rig. Had a great
discussion with them at the recent Huntsville hamfest, and in particular
what accommodations they need from a software control standpoint. It looks
as if they will be at the AMSAT Symposium this fall, so there should be
plenty of room for discussion!
Alan
WA4SCA
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:51:19 -0500
From: Rocky Jones <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: <ke9v@xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>, Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL106-W34D40A166D5E9143F82C72D6FB0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:53:11 +0000
> From: ke9v@xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:35:29PM -0500, Rocky Jones wrote:
> >
> > Bruce...so we are doing satellites now for their educational not
communicative value?
>
> Why not?
> --
> Jeff, KE9V
because if we do satellites for educational purposes then the effort is non
sustainable.
you can already see that in the trends in the US.
the most popular birds (the FM birds) are ones for whom commercial equipment
from the antenna to the radio is available and is relatively user friendly.
the more "esoteric" the communication platform gets the less used it is. The
less people who can use a platform then the less people there are to
contribute to building new ones...and the less people there are then the less
likely it is that manufactors will build equipment which will allow more
people to use the platform.
It is a negative feedback in a gain loop and to use a phrase "the oscillation"
stops.
That is what makes the decisions on AO 40 so lame. Instead of building a
satellite which would provide Oscar 10/13 communications (with maybe something
at 2.4 ghz which could become reliable) they had to go build a super sat which
was going to do things that were simply out of reach of all but a very few
hams (40ghz? or whatever it was) .. it got more and more complicated,
obviously to complicated for the people who were building it...and now it and
the money that built it are gone.
I'll bet you money that if the truth came out, what happened with Suitsat 2
and the suits is that the project grew so "complicated" that the folks
building it just missed various deadlines ie they couldnt get the thing built.
Who knows if they will be able to meet the next deadline (ie for a 2010 early
lift) of if it will work or not, the first one a much simpler system was a
pretty solid failure.
If "educating our youth" (a tired NASA phrase) starts becoming the foundation
for anything in ham radio...then before long we will find there is no ham
radio. This of course follows NASA in general. They have failed to make
human spaceflight relevant to the rest of America in anything but pretty tired
phrases...and if you have not noticed there are big changes ahead.
Robert WB5MZO
_________________________________________________________________
Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you.
http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToS
chool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 4, Issue 419
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
