| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 24.08.09 01:57l 625 Lines 21820 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 62136-CX2SA
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V4 423
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<F8KFY<CX2SA
Sent: 090823/2354Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:62136 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:62136-CX2SA
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. HR1LW Grid ? (Alvaro de Leon Romo)
2. Re: MFJ/Cushcraft (Glen Zook)
3. My visit to Ham Fair Tokyo and joining JAMSAT booth
(William Leijenaar)
4. Re: My visit to Ham Fair Tokyo and joining JAMSAT booth (i8cvs)
5. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) (Rocky Jones)
6. Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio (David - KG4ZLB)
7. Re: (amsat-bb) Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS(butal)
(Dale Hershberger)
8. Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio (Gary "Joe" Mayfield)
9. Fw: Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
(rwmcgwier@xxxxx.xxxx
10. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) (Luc Leblanc)
11. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) (Rocky Jones)
12. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) (Jeff Davis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 09:57:50 -0500
From: Alvaro de Leon Romo <xe2at@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] HR1LW Grid ?
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <BAY108-W1431EBA88A69E9458C535F5FA0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Who know the HR1LW grid ?
In QRZ is not shown...
Many thanks in advance , like always
Al XE2AT
_________________________________________________________________
Con Windows Live, puedes organizar, editar y compartir tus fotos.
http://www.microsoft.com/mexico/windows/windowslive/products/photo-gallery-
edit.aspx
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 08:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Glen Zook <gzook@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: MFJ/Cushcraft
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx Bob <w7lrd@xxxxxxx.xxx>, Jim Jerzycke
<kq6ea@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <595432.45822.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
The major problem with mfj products is that quality control is virtually non-
existent. Hardware will be missing from one unit and then extra hardware
(probably that intended for the previous unit down the production line) will
be "rattling" around the next unit. Some solder connections will be poorly
done and other connections have never even thought of having solder applied.
The list of "problems" goes on.
I believe that mfj is VERY aware of these problems because in their warranty
they specifically state that repairs made by the owner will NOT violate the
warranty.
I always consider mfj products to be a "semi-kit". That is a unit partially
assembled by the factory but definitely needing further attention by the
person who purchases the unit.
Over the years I have acquired a number of mfj products, almost always from
someone who purchased the unit expecting it to work "out of the box". When
the unit does not work then that person often sells it or trades it. I have
bought a few items "new" and every one of those items had to have something
done to make them work correctly except for one item that worked correctly
from the "get go". That item was a 24 hour clock that was built "off shore"
and an mfj label added.
Glen, K9STH
Website: http://k9sth.com
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 09:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Leijenaar <pe1rah@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] My visit to Ham Fair Tokyo and joining JAMSAT
booth
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <957508.90700.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Hello (J)AMSATs,
Today was the last day of Tokyo Ham Fair, which was another great day like it
was yesterday. I was at the JAMSAT booth where I showed my small transponder
design to the HAM people, which gave a lot off interest from all kinds of
people. Possibilities for future satellite have been created and people have
been made interrested in doing satellite? communication.
I had also the opertunity to meet a lot of people using the VO-52 satellite,
on which is my transponder. It is a great joy to see the satellite activities
here on the other side of the globe (seen from my home in The Netherlands). I
noticed that a lot of CW is used here. Some people are doing city junting,
which means they have their car build like a satellite station (incl. rotor
and elevation) and hop between satellite passes from one city to another, and
try to make QSOs from as many cities as possible. The car stations are real
nice contructions, and of great ham spirit. Very nice to see...
There was also a list with number of contacts made for each satellite pass by
one ham. The highest number was on VO-52 with 42 QSO's for one pass (over
Japan), 36 in CW and 6 in SSB. Its really amazing, and it must have been done
with very high time efficiency, and a very fast CW wrist hihi...
It was a great time at the JAMSAT booth, and we had a nice after party with
lot of JAMSAT members, and with delicious Japanese food. My thanks for the
great hospitality from the JAMSAT people, and thanks for the nice talks we had
about satellites.
73 de JA/PE1RAH
William Leijenaar in Tokyo (till 28 August)
---
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:53:22 +0200
From: "i8cvs" <domenico.i8cvs@xxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: My visit to Ham Fair Tokyo and joining JAMSAT
booth
To: "William Leijenaar" <pe1rah@xxxxx.xxx>, "AMSAT-BB"
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <001601ca2412$3a12c3c0$0201a8c0@xxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi William, PE1RAH
Again congratulations for VO-52 my preferred satellite along with FO-29.Both
satellites are extensively used as well here in Europe by those HAM people
who like CW and SSB.
Since you are in Tokyo try please to get accurate technical informations
about the new ICOM 9100 and let us know your opinion about.
Tanks and 73" de
i8CVS Domenico
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Leijenaar" <pe1rah@xxxxx.xxx>
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 6:38 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] My visit to Ham Fair Tokyo and joining JAMSAT booth
Hello (J)AMSATs,
Today was the last day of Tokyo Ham Fair, which was another great day like
it was yesterday. I was at the JAMSAT booth where I showed my small
transponder design to the HAM people, which gave a lot off interest from all
kinds of people. Possibilities for future satellite have been created and
people have been made interrested in doing satellite communication.
I had also the opertunity to meet a lot of people using the VO-52 satellite,
on which is my transponder. It is a great joy to see the satellite
activities here on the other side of the globe (seen from my home in The
Netherlands). I noticed that a lot of CW is used here. Some people are doing
city junting, which means they have their car build like a satellite station
(incl. rotor and elevation) and hop between satellite passes from one city
to another, and try to make QSOs from as many cities as possible. The car
stations are real nice contructions, and of great ham spirit. Very nice to
see...
There was also a list with number of contacts made for each satellite pass
by one ham. The highest number was on VO-52 with 42 QSO's for one pass (over
Japan), 36 in CW and 6 in SSB. Its really amazing, and it must have been
done with very high time efficiency, and a very fast CW wrist hihi...
It was a great time at the JAMSAT booth, and we had a nice after party with
lot of JAMSAT members, and with delicious Japanese food. My thanks for the
great hospitality from the JAMSAT people, and thanks for the nice talks we
had about satellites.
73 de JA/PE1RAH
William Leijenaar in Tokyo (till 28 August)
---
_______________________________________________
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: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:38:51 -0500
From: Rocky Jones <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: <n8fgv@xxx.xxx>, Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL106-W39B0BD5C0D2E0A27174D41D6FA0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dan Schultz N8FGV
>
>
based on your logic no criticism whatsoever is warranted.
As for AO-40. It failed for the same reason that suitsat 1 did, and for the
same reason that a lot of people who build their own airplane kill themselves
every year trying to "test fly it"....the project got to big for the
organization that was building it...ie their technical competence was
insufficient for the task at hand.
But in your view (at least as best as I understand it) that evaluation should
not be made because "at least they tried".
sorry I dont buy that logic
Robert WB5MZO
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail? is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-
US:WM_HYGN_faster:082009
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:57:35 -0400
From: David - KG4ZLB <kg4zlb@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4A91830F.4070009@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
*/(Also posted on the 9100 BB)/*
I thinks its a "pretty" radio (for what that's worth!), the screen could
have been in colour and a fish finder might have been nice.
It looks like the display on a 746 so in that regard its a bit of a
throwback.
It's a TS2000 clone(ish)
Would I buy one? Maybe, but only after it had been checked out to ensure
no "TS" like birdies.
Of course its a shack in a box and more so now that they have stuffed
1.2 into it - I am a bit concerned that these types of radios are jack
of all trades and masters of none which is where I believe the TS falls
down.
I gather that the 1.2 module is different to the 1.2 unit that goes in
the 910 so no saving there; I can't take the one from my 910 - I think
that's just plain wrong of Icom to expect us to buy yet another unit
when I am sure the existing one could have been made to fit. That is
just wrong, wrong, wrong!
This is going to be expensive and I want some other suckers with more
money than sense, err...sorry, I meant enthusiasts ( :-D ) to find out
where the glitches are, get Icom to fix them and bring out the
IC-9100MKII before I would contemplate buying one!
Just my tuppence!
David
KG4ZLB
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 09:58:32 -0600
From: Dale Hershberger <daleh@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: (amsat-bb) Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to
ISS(butal)
To: amsat bbs <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <4A916728.3060105@xxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Well put Dan...Thank you!
Folks need to put their energy in the positive and try to improve
things if they do not agree the ways things are going.
Dale KL7XJ
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:04:53 -0500
From: "Gary \"Joe\" Mayfield" <gary_mayfield@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
Cc: "'AMSAT-BB'" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL0-DAV5657CD15AD2689F5DEFB8E8AFA0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I believe the K-3 sub receiver does full duplex on HF as long as you use
different antenna ports. Sounds like a great solution to me. One would
think you could do that with the transverters, and have a full duplex
satellite radio.
73,
Joe kk0sd
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of James Duffey
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 9:46 AM
To: k7dd@xxx.xxx
Cc: James Duffey; 'AMSAT-BB'
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: New ICOM VHF / UHF / SHF Radio
On Aug 23, 2009, at 7:49 AM, Michael Baker wrote:
>
> If that's the case, I think I would opt for a K3 with transverters
> as that would be a better combination performance wise for the $$$
> investment.
While the raw performance of a K-3 is pretty impressive, it will cost
a lot more to reproduce the new ICOM-9100, or even the current
TS-2000, with a K-3 and even then, you will not have the ability to do
full duplex, which is required for serious satellite work. A modestly
equipped K-3 with 10W 2M output will set you back $2700 or more, you
need to add a 100W 2M amplifier at about $400, a 432 MHz transverter
at $400, a 432 MHz amplifier at $400, a 75 Watt amp at $400, and a
1296 MHz transverter at $600, so you are close to $5k, still without
the capability to do duplex for satellites.
For sheer performance you are better off with the K-3, but you pay for
it, and serious satellite use is precluded. - Duffey
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM
_______________________________________________
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: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:06:35 +0000
From: rwmcgwier@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Fw: Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: "amsat bb" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<1345730450-1251050754-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-
435414168-@xxxxxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xx.xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: rwmcgwier@xxxxx.xxx
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:05:42
To: Rocky Jones<orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
This note is based on an almost complete ignorance of both projects. On AO40
a signature on a checkout document at launch site says motor was checked by
those responsible. The checkout document (not amsat's) reveals that the
necessary mod to doc revealing need to do an extra operation was not present.
Result: crap happens. Everything tested before motor burn seemed fine. Don't
know many craft that could take this amd go on to deliver years of service.
We all cry over the lost opportunity but it was still a major achievement.
Suitsat 1 worked before transport. It was tested. We will never know what
went wrong in transit.
I understand everyone's desire for more and better results but before you
level a cannon, at least know what you are talking about.
73's
Bob n4hy
------Original Message------
From: Rocky Jones
Sender: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx
To: n8fgv@xxx.xxx
To: amsat bb
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
Sent: Aug 23, 2009 1:38 PM
>
> Dan Schultz N8FGV
>
>
based on your logic no criticism whatsoever is warranted.
As for AO-40. It failed for the same reason that suitsat 1 did, and for the
same reason that a lot of people who build their own airplane kill themselves
every year trying to "test fly it"....the project got to big for the
organization that was building it...ie their technical competence was
insufficient for the task at hand.
But in your view (at least as best as I understand it) that evaluation should
not be made because "at least they tried".
sorry I dont buy that logic
Robert WB5MZO
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail? is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-
US:WM_HYGN_faster:082009
_______________________________________________
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 from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 03:47:41 -0400
From: Luc Leblanc <lucleblanc6@xxxxxxxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4A90BBDD.5933.F9B8B@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On 22 Aug 2009 at 11:51, Rocky Jones wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Never forget the builders factor
Each one involved in the sat making have their own ideas about what THEY
believe the satellite should be. It has been well documented in
the past that some says they are not interested in building something they
already built in the past. They want new technology even if they
will be the few who will be able to use it.
In the mean time if the next HEO will not be a viable solution in this decade
could be something in the AO-07 range should be looking at?
"-"
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE
Skype VE2DWE
www.qsl.net/ve2dwe
WAC BASIC CW PHONE SATELLITE
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:57:43 -0500
From: Rocky Jones <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: <lucleblanc6@xxxxxxxxx.xx>, Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL106-W48262694647AD688B60E78D6FA0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Never forget the builders factor
>
> Each one involved in the sat making have their own ideas about what THEY
believe the satellite should be. It has been well documented in
> the past that some says they are not interested in building something they
already built in the past. They want new technology even if they
> will be the few who will be able to use it.
>
> In the mean time if the next HEO will not be a viable solution in this
decade could be something in the AO-07 range should be looking at?
> "-"
>
>
> Luc Leblanc VE2DWE
Luc. I have no doubt that what you say is correct. That is where good
project management comes into play...and the issue of what Amsat is all about.
Is it about the folks who build the satellites or the folks who are making
them possible.
you have stated my point quite well.
If we are out of the HEO business (and one hopes 3E flies) then yes, what we
should do in my view is a plethora of AO-7's. If we had a supply of those the
entire community would be better off.
Robert WB5MZO
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.
http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:W
L:en-US:SI_SB_online:082009
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:58:20 +0000
From: Jeff Davis <ke9v@xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <20090823185820.GA28745@xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:58:30PM -0500, Rocky Jones wrote:
>
> That is not a flaw in my argument, it was a fact. As best I understand it,
and it has been sometime since I looked at it in any depth, the flaw in the
AO-40 rocket motor was that a procedure was missed in preping the motor for
flight.
This is a deviation from your previous posting where you linked the
demise of AO40 to it being 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)".
Clearly the kind of mistake that caused the catastrophic failure could
have happened on any spacecraft assembled by any organization.
> The folks building /E have figured it out and returned to a rather robust
"simple" satellite...More then one homebuilder of airplanes (garage planes)
has found in someway that their modifications were mistakes (the lucky ones
when the DER's shut them down).
You can call it "simple" if you like but a) it remains firmly affixed to
earth and b) it is being sold to the German government as an adjunct to
a mission to Mars. If you want to call an interplanetary mission
"simple" that's your call, but P3E was scheduled to be launched years
ago to support the P5 mission that was supposed to launch in 2009 and
I'll buy the first beer whenever either of those fly...
> I dont know this for a fact but would suspect that one reason launches are
hard to come by for anything with rocket propulsion in it (ie a hamsat with a
rocket engine in it) is what happen with AO-40. If I owned the rocket that
failure would scare me
For the last time (from me, I promise) we have been told in no uncertain
terms that the cost for a launch to GTO that would carry a craft of the
size required to provide a happy medium of solar panels and antennas
will cost no less than $6 million US and maybe as much as $8 million.
Years ago (has it been almost a decade now?) when we first started talking
about 'Eagle' it took AMSAT-NA two years to raise $90,000 US. At that
rate, it would require a century for us to raise enough money to get
back to GTO.
Facts on the ground have already determined the outcome of this debate.
Whether or not AMSAT members (and officers for that matter) are willing
to accept reality is an entirely different matter.
Many actually prefer the blue pill...
--
Jeff, KE9V
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 423
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
