| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 25.08.09 15:46l 1128 Lines 40269 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 62590-CX2SA
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V4 429
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<ON0AR<HS1LMV<CX2SA
Sent: 090825/1327Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:62590 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:62590-CX2SA
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Crushcraft A 270-10s (Gary "Joe" Mayfield)
2. S Band Activity 08/2009 (John Papay)
3. Re: S Band Activity 08/2009 (Andrew Glasbrenner)
4. Re: High LEO for cubesat? (Pete Parisetti)
5. FO-29 Heard...sort of (David Wing)
6. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) (John P. Toscano)
7. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) (Art McBride)
8. Re: FO-29 Heard...sort of (David Wing)
9. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) (Rocky Jones)
10. Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) (Ben Jackson)
11. Fw: Searching for k3PGP (i8cvs)
12. Fw: Searching for k3PGP (i8cvs)
13. Re: S Band Activity 08/2009 (Alan P. Biddle)
14. Re: High LEO for cubesat? (Bruce Robertson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:03:48 -0500
From: "Gary \"Joe\" Mayfield" <gary_mayfield@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Crushcraft A 270-10s
To: "'Jerry Felts'" <nr5ajerry@xxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL0-DAV4206C9FA7DBF0E7A3426088AF80@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jerry,
If I were starting up I would go with Gulf Alpha
http://www.gulfalphaantennas.com/
Standard disclaimer.
Joe kk0sd
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Jerry Felts
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 3:56 PM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Crushcraft A 270-10s
What are your feelins towards the Crushcraft A270-10s duel band yagi??
Is the Elk a better ant? I need to get something on the tower soon.
--
Jerry - NR5A - South Dakota
http://nr5abikeblog.blogspot.com/
http://nr5abeaconblog.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
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: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:08:41 -0400
From: John Papay <john@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] S Band Activity 08/2009
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <200908250311.n7P3BZGP044383@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Many of you have no idea what goes on when AO51 is in
the S band downlink mode. Until this past week, I was
in the dark as well. Who operates S band and what is it
like compared to the more popular V/U mode? What kind
of equipment does it take to get on S band. If you don't
have S Band equipment, should you invest in some? Are
you going to work anybody new or perhaps a new grid?
After a week of making q's and listening to 29 passes of
S band, there is some data and observations to share.
A lot of people are using the K5GNA setup. My setup was
quite different. The antenna used was a Hyperlink
Technologies (now L-Com in Florida) 18dbi Wifi Panel
Antenna. It is well made and comes with stainless mounting
hardware including a 2-1/2" U-bolt that will fit most any
mast. It's about 2" thick and 14"x9" rectangular. Price
is $50, not bad for a well made weatherproof outdoor antenna.
The Down East Microwave preamp kit and outdoor housing for it
is about $85. The outdoor box is as expensive as the preamp
kit itself. It was mounted on the antenna with a 7' 9913
pigtail. The 45' of coax into the shack is 3/8" Andrew
Heliax. In the shack is a Drake 2880 down converter with
a new crystal from G0MRF to get the output on 145 MHz. Both
the preamp and the downconverter are powered through the coax
so you need two power inserters. I used a second radio for
the IF so that there was no chance of transmitting into
the downconverter. Doppler is about =/- 55 KHz from horizon
to horizon. You can see what it looks like on the tower
on my qrz.com page. Click the image to enlarge.
At first I was disappointed because I am used to hearing
435.300 down to the horizon in most directions. It didn't
happen with S-band. But after listening to other stations,
it was apparent that my setup was hearing better than most.
There has been discussion about the slow roll of AO51 and
that is certainly apparent, however, I could not hear much
below 6 degrees, ever. Maybe a bigger antenna would help
out, but those that were active didn't seem to have any
better receive capabilities so it makes you wonder.
Now for the activity data. Below is each pass that I
operated or listened to and the stations I worked (with
an asterisk) or ones that I just heard (no asterisk).
8/16/2009 2245Z (first S-Band mode pass)
KC9ELU* KJ4MC KD8CAO*
8/17/2009 0036Z
KC9ELU* N6PAA W7LRD
8/17/2009 1053Z
KC9ELU*
8/17/2009 1234Z
VE2DWE* KC9ELU* KD8CAO* KB2M* W8KHP N5ZNL*
8/17/2009 2359Z
W8KHP* N5ZNL* VE2DWE* W7JPI* K5WH* W7LRD* K9QHO*
8/18/2009 1151Z
WB8OTH* W7JPI* N5ZNL* W8KHP*
8/18/2009 1331Z
K9QHO* W7JPI*
8/18/2009 2128Z
WB8OTH* KC9ELU* W8KHP
8/18/2009 2305Z
W7JPI* KC9ELU N0JY* W8KHP* N5ZNL K9QHO KD6IRE? XE2BHL
8/19/2009 1116Z
KC9ELU
8/19/2009 1252Z
WB8OTH* XE2BHL* KC9ELU*
8/19/2009 2230Z
W8KHP* VE2DWE*
8/20/2009 0006Z
N5ZNL/P* N5UXT* N0JY* VE2DWE* W8KHP* WB8OTH W7LRD*
8/20/2009 1213Z
KC9ELU* KB2M* W8KHP* N5UXT* N5ZNL
8/20/2009 1353Z
AI7W* W7JPI* KC9ELU WB6QVU?
8/20/2009 2153Z
NO STATIONS HEARD
8/20/2009 2326Z
W7JPI W8KHP K9QHO W7LRD WHISTLER
8/21/2009 0111Z
2 DEGREE PASS, NOTHING HEARD
8/21/2009 1145Z
N5ZNL* KB2M*
8/21/2009 1314Z
KC9ELU* N5UXT* W7JPI*
8/21/2009 2246Z
KG4ZLB* WB8OTH* N0JY* W8KHP* AK5V*
8/22/2009 0029Z
AK5V* KB2M N0JY* W7LRD*
8/22/2009 1053Z
KC9ELU* KB2M*
8/22/2009 1234Z
KC9ELU* W7JPI* K8KHP*
8/22/2009 2207Z
KC9ELU*
8/22/2009 2347Z
WA5KBH* WD9EWK* N5ZNL* XE2BHL* KC9ELU*
8/23/2009 1156Z
W2NBJ* KC9ELU* WA4SCA*
8/23/2009 1332Z
KC9ELU* W7JPI* N5UXT* XE2BHL
8/23/2009 2127Z
KC9ELU* N1RCN*
Mike, KC9ELU was on vacation this past week and was the
most active station on S-Band. It was interesting to
compare our reception and have airtime to discuss it.
The only new guys I'm aware of were myself and N1RCN who
got things working on the very last S-Band pass. Drew,
where were you?
Some have been asking for more S Band, but if you take a look
at the activity, it pales in comparison to what we have in
the V/U mode. The last AO51 V/U pass tonight (8/25/2009
0007Z max elevation 17 degrees to the west for me) had at
least 23 stations on it. More were trying. It's a Monday
night! I never heard more than 8 stations on any S-Band pass,
and there were plenty with just one, two or three.
If you have AO40 equipment laying around, you might be a
good candidate for S band. But unless you are prepared
for a very high dollar investment/qso, you probably won't
be buying S-Band equipment to work the few stations that
get on that mode. If you want to do L/S, there will most
likely be even less activity since making noise on 1.2GHz
is even more expensive. (When L/S comes on, I'll have
another report.) My antenna system could be improved but
there's not much point in spending more effort and putting
more windload on the az/el rotor to hear down to the horizon.
We need to balance the interests of everyone and that is
understood. We need some V/S or L/S from time to time. I'm
not sure, however, that an entire week should be devoted to
it considering the usage. Maybe a few days at a time would
make more sense. You work on your equipment and get ready
for the three day period. If your setup doesn't work, you
figure out why and get on the next time. Shorter sessions
would focus the activity rather than spread it out over a
week's time.
We should do things that will interest new people in working
satellites. V/U is the entry level for newcomers and we
should make that available as much as possible. There are
other FM birds, but nothing compares to what AO-51 does to
attract new hams to satellite technology. It's signal level,
available time/pass and morning/evening pass schedule over
the US are ideal.
There is a lot of debate over what we should be doing for the
future. But it is as important to debate how we should use
the resources we have available to us right now. My hope is
that this post will inspire some constructive comments and
discussion on this subject.
John K8YSE
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:16:05 -0400
From: "Andrew Glasbrenner" <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S Band Activity 08/2009
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, "John Papay" <john@xxxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <2829F4FAC3494B7B863D837727BBD1CE@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
> Drew,
> where were you?
Digital side collecting WOD files, and much of the time at work. Summer is
the time for field work in geology and geophysics, and that's what pays the
bills. Last week I was in Tallahassee most of the week, and very busy. Sat
time was done remotely over the web, checking in to collect files that WISP
downloaded automatically. This weekend and week I'm steering the ship
(mediocrely) while Gould is away.
> If you have AO40 equipment laying around, you might be a
> good candidate for S band. But unless you are prepared
> for a very high dollar investment/qso, you probably won't
> be buying S-Band equipment to work the few stations that
> get on that mode.
S does not have to be expensive. A few years ago there were AIDC
downconverters on Ebay for less than $50, and building a helix is
practically free. Many folks like S for the challenge of building and
modifying the gear for cheap. Heck, we even have some folks who use surplus
MMDS downconverters that were found on Ebay for $6 each. A 2m HT, a surplus
downconverter, a scrap of wire, and a scanner, and you are in business.
>
> We need to balance the interests of everyone and that is
> understood. We need some V/S or L/S from time to time. I'm
> not sure, however, that an entire week should be devoted to
> it considering the usage. Maybe a few days at a time would
> make more sense. You work on your equipment and get ready
> for the three day period. If your setup doesn't work, you
> figure out why and get on the next time. Shorter sessions
> would focus the activity rather than spread it out over a
> week's time.
We've tried both ways. Having modes run in one week increments is easy to
schedule, easy for the command team to implement (we are usually home on
Sunday evenings), and easy for folks to remember when the mode change is.
We've had 5 years to tweak this equation, and this is what works best in the
current situation. You have one point of view that you have expressed to me
before, and there are a myriad of other, often conflicting, viewpoints.
Comprimise is not an easy task. Single mode satellites are so much easier.
> We should do things that will interest new people in working
> satellites. V/U is the entry level for newcomers and we
> should make that available as much as possible.
It's available every day with or without AO-51 on 5 or 6 other satellites.
However, without AO-51 there is no S and no L at all. Once you have mastered
V/U, where to next if not L or S on 51? We've personally discussed this
several times in the past. If SumbandilaSat is as successful as I think it
will be with it's 4 or 5? watt downlink, you may find AO-51 in S more often
than now. If Kiwisat works well on L up, or someone ever reloads GO-32 with
the L BBS uplink, we may cut back on L time. Another issue is that once the
next two full illumination periods are over, we may have a hard time running
the S transmitter at all, due to power requirements and the deteriorating
batteries. AO-51 by mid 2011 will likely not be able to support the S
transmitter at all through eclipse, and will then revert to just V/U or L/U
ops, and with only one transmitter at a time. Hopefully we'll have another S
downlink by then, like Delfi Next, or maybe an AMSAT-Fox.
>There are
> other FM birds, but nothing compares to what AO-51 does to
> attract new hams to satellite technology. It's signal level,
> available time/pass and morning/evening pass schedule over
> the US are ideal.
Maybe for you. Do you speak for everyone? I happen to think the AO-51 pass
times are really poor now. I'm getting ready for work in the morning, or
driving there, and eating dinner or driving home for the evening passes.
AO-27 is about the same power level as AO-51 usually is, and is actually
stronger for those using Arrows who match polarization with the downlink,
since 27 has a linear downlink and 51 circular. SO-50 offers pass times that
change from week to week, offering the newbie a chance to get on late night
or early morning and not be trampled by grid chasers or the "breakfast club"
saying hi to each other for the third time that day. 51 is hard to use for
club meeting demos since the passes are over by the time the meeting even
starts. I've switched to using AO-7, FO-29 or VO-52 for evening demos. Same
for hamfests since the doors aren't open by the last morning pass, and
everyone is home sorting their loot by the afternoon passes.
>
> There is a lot of debate over what we should be doing for the
> future. But it is as important to debate how we should use
> the resources we have available to us right now. My hope is
> that this post will inspire some constructive comments and
> discussion on this subject.
I welcome the input, and the modes committee and I read and consider
everything we get, and most of what we see on the -bb that is relevant.
However, I've noticed there has been a lot of politicking and jockeying
lately about scheduling, and I wish it would stop. Send the committee your
own personal wishes, and rest assured that we are doing our best to meet
everyone's requests, and represent all interests. It's not an easy job, and
the less politics we have to deal with, the easier it is to do.
Glad you enjoyed V/S, and take this in the friendly spirit in which it was
offered.
73, Drew KO4MA
AMSAT VP Operations
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:28:14 +0200
From: Pete Parisetti <hb9dsu@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: High LEO for cubesat?
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<b95ae8180908241428l524fa40bse7372c3d564c18e2@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hey! Where do I send my money?
As far as my technically-challenged understanding goes, G0MRF's argument is
very solid - it sounds bloody good and I don't understand why nobody's
working on something of that sort already. I, for one, would be quite glad
to make a financial contribution to such a project, and I'm sure many others
would as well.
So - where's the catch? This, as I understand, is different from the
recently announced AMSAT India project, and seems to me even more feasible:
three cubesats...
What is holding us back? Who could take the lead?
Best.
Pete
--
___________________________
Pete Parisetti MM0TWX - HB9DSU
for music, ham radio and more
visit http://www.hb9dsu.com
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:27:32 -0700
From: "David Wing" <david@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] FO-29 Heard...sort of
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <EBA2A3A043F44E86993456B45390247B@xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
So, after dismal results on the FO-29 passes this morning and reading other
reports of the bird not being heard, I jumped on the 0409 UTC North American
pass this evening to try a few things. I found that I could hear my self
whistling but it was very distorted and fairly low audio. I had to turn up
to 50W to hear things although at apogee (41 degree) was able to just barely
hear a distorted whistle when I was pushing 10W. At apogee and 50W I
*might* have been hearing myself do a 1-2 count repeatedly but I'm not
sure.whistling definitely was coming through but was distorted and raspy
(like a torn speaker)
Anyway, not sure if this info is helpful or not but wanted to report it.
73
David
K6CDW
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:56:39 -0500
From: "John P. Toscano" <tosca005@xx.xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <4A936F07.2000505@xx.xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Rocky Jones wrote:
> 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
I'm not quite sure who is quoting whom, i.e. if the quote above is by
Rocky, who sent the email, or Dan, who is mentioned above the quotation
that I excerpted, or by Robert, who seems to have signed it.
In any case, irrespective of who wrote it, the gist of it is getting
under my skin...
"As for AO-40. It failed..." (because) "...the project got to (sic) big
for the organization that was building it...ie (sic) their technical
competence was insufficient for the task at hand"
Spelling and grammar aside (or maybe small details REALLY ARE important?
-- just a random thought), it is hard to disagree logically with the
fundamental principle. In less inflammatory terms, a bunch of amateurs
who were not really rocket scientists tried to build a satellite, and
they weren't able to pull it off 100% successfully because they tried to
do more than they were qualified to do.
Nevertheless, does this mean that we should:
a) never try to do something harder than what we KNOW in advance that
we are capable of accomplishing?
b) never make mistakes, even though the only way to guarantee that
you will never do anything WRONG is by DOING NOTHING AT ALL?
c) LEARN from our mistakes and try again?
Personally, I vote for number 3. Note that choice #3 doesn't say "keep
repeating our mistakes", it says "LEARN from them" and implies that when
we try again, we do so in a manner wherein we are better prepared than
we were the time before.
OK. I am mad as hell that someone failed to notice the bright red (or
was it yellow) flag attached to a port cap that clearly said "REMOVE
BEFORE FLIGHT", and caused the AO-40 propulsion system to self-destruct
when activated. But dang it all, people should stop carping about the
number, complexity, and even frequencies of the transponders that were
placed aboard AO-40, because NONE of that had ANYTHING to do with the
reason it failed. In fact, as I've said before, and has fallen on deaf
ears before (or maybe it's on blind eyes), the COMPLEXITY of AO-40 is
what SAVED it at all, made it usable at all, for the short time we had
her around to enjoy. One transponder is blown up, switch over to a
different one. Etc.
Call the AMSAT builders "incompetent" as many times as you want, it does
not change one ugly fact. If you want a high earth orbit satellite (and
I most certainly DO), IT MUST BE A COMPLEX DEVICE. ROCKET PROPULSION
SYSTEMS ARE COMPLEX, BEST UNDERSTOOD BY ROCKET SCIENTISTS, AND YOU WILL
NEVER GET TO H.E.O. WITHOUT ONE.
So, either stop whining that you want an H.E.O. satellite, or stop
whining about wanting a satellite that is not complex. We either get the
training/education/experience that allows us to "get it right", or we
abandon the task and take up knitting. Or we keep stumbling around in
the dark making lots of expensive mistakes. But as Scottie told Captain
Kirk, "I'm sorry captain! I canna change the laws of physics!" A
satellite in high earth orbit is a complex device.
And talk about having their heads inserted into their anal orifices, we
have people saying, in essence, "you people are too stupid to make a
complex high-earth-orbit satellite work", and at the same time, "you
people are foolish to invest any energy into educating students about
satellite technology", or even worse, "you are foolish to try to take
students who are already interested in satellite technology and get them
excited about the possibility of using that technology for
non-commercial (i.e., AMATEUR) radio communications". Give me a break.
Maybe one of those folks, a REAL rocket scientist, will someday be the
person who leads us amateurs to success.
It all boils down to this. There is a nearly infinite number of
non-productive choices that do not further the cause of progress. There
are three fundamental choices that DO lead to progress:
1) LEAD
2) FOLLOW
3) GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY AND LET SOMEONE ELSE DO IT
73 de W?JT
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:13:08 -0700
From: "Art McBride" <kc6uqh@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: "'John P. Toscano'" <tosca005@xx.xxx.xxx>, "'Amsat BB'"
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <01861AE53C4845BA98E11C9F542B6DE7@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Either we make history, or we complain about it. The choice is ours!
This thread is dead!
Art KC6UQH
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of John P. Toscano
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 9:57 PM
To: Amsat BB
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
Rocky Jones wrote:
> 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
I'm not quite sure who is quoting whom, i.e. if the quote above is by
Rocky, who sent the email, or Dan, who is mentioned above the quotation
that I excerpted, or by Robert, who seems to have signed it.
In any case, irrespective of who wrote it, the gist of it is getting
under my skin...
"As for AO-40. It failed..." (because) "...the project got to (sic) big
for the organization that was building it...ie (sic) their technical
competence was insufficient for the task at hand"
Spelling and grammar aside (or maybe small details REALLY ARE important?
-- just a random thought), it is hard to disagree logically with the
fundamental principle. In less inflammatory terms, a bunch of amateurs
who were not really rocket scientists tried to build a satellite, and
they weren't able to pull it off 100% successfully because they tried to
do more than they were qualified to do.
Nevertheless, does this mean that we should:
a) never try to do something harder than what we KNOW in advance that
we are capable of accomplishing?
b) never make mistakes, even though the only way to guarantee that
you will never do anything WRONG is by DOING NOTHING AT ALL?
c) LEARN from our mistakes and try again?
Personally, I vote for number 3. Note that choice #3 doesn't say "keep
repeating our mistakes", it says "LEARN from them" and implies that when
we try again, we do so in a manner wherein we are better prepared than
we were the time before.
OK. I am mad as hell that someone failed to notice the bright red (or
was it yellow) flag attached to a port cap that clearly said "REMOVE
BEFORE FLIGHT", and caused the AO-40 propulsion system to self-destruct
when activated. But dang it all, people should stop carping about the
number, complexity, and even frequencies of the transponders that were
placed aboard AO-40, because NONE of that had ANYTHING to do with the
reason it failed. In fact, as I've said before, and has fallen on deaf
ears before (or maybe it's on blind eyes), the COMPLEXITY of AO-40 is
what SAVED it at all, made it usable at all, for the short time we had
her around to enjoy. One transponder is blown up, switch over to a
different one. Etc.
Call the AMSAT builders "incompetent" as many times as you want, it does
not change one ugly fact. If you want a high earth orbit satellite (and
I most certainly DO), IT MUST BE A COMPLEX DEVICE. ROCKET PROPULSION
SYSTEMS ARE COMPLEX, BEST UNDERSTOOD BY ROCKET SCIENTISTS, AND YOU WILL
NEVER GET TO H.E.O. WITHOUT ONE.
So, either stop whining that you want an H.E.O. satellite, or stop
whining about wanting a satellite that is not complex. We either get the
training/education/experience that allows us to "get it right", or we
abandon the task and take up knitting. Or we keep stumbling around in
the dark making lots of expensive mistakes. But as Scottie told Captain
Kirk, "I'm sorry captain! I canna change the laws of physics!" A
satellite in high earth orbit is a complex device.
And talk about having their heads inserted into their anal orifices, we
have people saying, in essence, "you people are too stupid to make a
complex high-earth-orbit satellite work", and at the same time, "you
people are foolish to invest any energy into educating students about
satellite technology", or even worse, "you are foolish to try to take
students who are already interested in satellite technology and get them
excited about the possibility of using that technology for
non-commercial (i.e., AMATEUR) radio communications". Give me a break.
Maybe one of those folks, a REAL rocket scientist, will someday be the
person who leads us amateurs to success.
It all boils down to this. There is a nearly infinite number of
non-productive choices that do not further the cause of progress. There
are three fundamental choices that DO lead to progress:
1) LEAD
2) FOLLOW
3) GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY AND LET SOMEONE ELSE DO IT
73 de W?JT
_______________________________________________
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
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4364 (20090824) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4364 (20090824) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:13:27 -0700
From: "David Wing" <david@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: FO-29 Heard...sort of
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <1325198744A54DBE8D7B8A741465899E@xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Nevermind...when I rolled up power I was just blasting my front end. Did
this test again while FO-29 was on the other side of the earth and got the
same results so, like I said, nevermind ;>(
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of David Wing
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 9:28 PM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] FO-29 Heard...sort of
So, after dismal results on the FO-29 passes this morning and reading other
reports of the bird not being heard, I jumped on the 0409 UTC North American
pass this evening to try a few things. I found that I could hear my self
whistling but it was very distorted and fairly low audio. I had to turn up
to 50W to hear things although at apogee (41 degree) was able to just barely
hear a distorted whistle when I was pushing 10W. At apogee and 50W I
*might* have been hearing myself do a 1-2 count repeatedly but I'm not
sure.whistling definitely was coming through but was distorted and raspy
(like a torn speaker)
Anyway, not sure if this info is helpful or not but wanted to report it.
73
David
K6CDW
_______________________________________________
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: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:26:45 -0500
From: Rocky Jones <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: <tosca005@xx.xxx.xxx>, Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL106-W66AD18D720A1A9FDD3D24D6F80@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
John...nice try, thats the old straw man argument
>
> And talk about having their heads inserted into their anal orifices, we
> have people saying, in essence, "you people are too stupid to make a
> complex high-earth-orbit satellite work", and at the same time, "you
> people are foolish to invest any energy into educating students about
> satellite technology", or even worse, "you are foolish to try to take
> students who are already interested in satellite technology and get them
> excited about the possibility of using that technology for
> non-commercial (i.e., AMATEUR) radio communications". Give me a break.
> Maybe one of those folks, a REAL rocket scientist, will someday be the
> person who leads us amateurs to success.
>
all the "cliches" that you quote aside I'll try one "A person has got to know
their limitations"...and any organization that allows a "remove before flight"
flag to stay on in flight is not dealing with their limitations. Indeed in
the real world, pilots are grounded permanently for taking off with one of
those flapping.
my entire point is that AMSAT ought to fly vehicles in concert with the
limitations of the capabilities of the folks who are building them...not in
concert with their imagination
anyway this thread is as I noted pretty well talked out. Hopefully the space
shuttle can launch without the foam coming off and banging the vehicle.
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: 10
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:22:37 -0400
From: Ben Jackson <bbj@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
To: Rocky Jones <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <4A93BB6D.2080909@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Rocky Jones wrote:
> John...nice try, thats the old straw man argument
The irony of this statement is rich.
> all the "cliches" that you quote aside I'll try one "A person has got
> to know their limitations"...and any organization that allows a
> "remove before flight" flag to stay on in flight is not dealing with
> their limitations. Indeed in the real world, pilots are grounded
> permanently for taking off with one of those flapping.
"But Marge! Trying is the first step toward failure!"
So, if Robert was in charge in the 1960s, Earth would have likely not
made it beyond LEO, if gotten that far. But, just think: We would have
NEVER failed!
One has to hope the Robert's wife was in charge of teaching his kids how
to ride their bikes.
> my entire point is that AMSAT ought to fly vehicles in concert with
> the limitations of the capabilities of the folks who are building
> them...not in concert with their imagination
Robert, if you are truly worried about something dooming AMSAT to
failure, you can appreciate how this statement, if followed, would do
it. AMSAT is one of the few bright spots in "pushing the envelope" of
Amateur radio. By artificially boxing people with the vague statement of
"Whoa there! We can't do that! We need to know our limits!" just
marginalizes AMSAT.
> anyway this thread is as I noted pretty well talked out. Hopefully
> the space shuttle can launch without the foam coming off and banging
> the vehicle.
And what the hell does this have to do with SuitlessSat at ALL?
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:14:18 +0200
From: "i8cvs" <domenico.i8cvs@xxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Fw: Searching for k3PGP
To: "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <003301ca257d$92728980$0201a8c0@xxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Kevin,
Your comcast.net don't like my tin.it !
73 de i8CVS Domenico
----- Original Message -----
From: "i8cvs" <domenico.i8cvs@xxx.xx>
To: "Kevin Smith" <kevin.j.smith@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Searching for k3PGP
> Hi Kevin, N3HKQ
>
> Tank you for your replay.
>
> I have the address of John that is correct and also his email
john@xxxxx.xxx
> but he do not answere to any of my letter because I suppose he is not
> opening the post !
>
> By the way since you leaves 25 km from him I am sure that you can help me
!
>
> Tanks and 73" de
>
> i8CVS Domenico
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Smith" <kevin.j.smith@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: "'i8cvs'" <domenico.i8cvs@xxx.xx>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 4:35 AM
> Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Searching for k3PGP
>
>
> > Domenico,
> >
> > I do not know John Yurek but I live about 25-km away from him. I looked
> him
> > up in the telephone directory and found the following address:
> >
> > John J Yurek
> > 3513 Route 130
> > Irwin, PA 15642-1699
> >
> > This is the same address as listed at QRZ.com but unfortunately there is
> no
> > telephone or email listings. I'll keep looking around for anything and
> let
> > you know if I find anything useful to you.
> >
> > PS: I suppose you tried k3pgp@xxxx.xxxx
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Kevin Smith
> > N3HKQ
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
> > Behalf Of i8cvs
> > Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 8:43 PM
> > To: AMSAT-BB
> > Cc: K3PGP - John
> > Subject: [amsat-bb] Searching for k3PGP
> >
> > Hi All, in the list
> >
> > I am in need to contact the very popular EME'r John J. Yurek K3PGP but I
> got
> > no answere to many email send to my friend.
> > If someone lives close to Irvin, PA 15642 and know him please let me
know
> if
> > is still there or not.
> >
> > Tanks for any help.
> >
> > 73" de
> >
> > i8CVS Domenico
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 12
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:17:19 +0200
From: "i8cvs" <domenico.i8cvs@xxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Fw: Searching for k3PGP
To: "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <003a01ca257d$fe51e4c0$0201a8c0@xxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Kevin,
My email to you at kevin.j.smith@xxxxxxx.xxx has been rejected by your
provider and so here is my replay to you.
73" de
i8CVS Domenico
----- Original Message -----
From: "i8cvs" <domenico.i8cvs@xxx.xx>
To: "Kevin Smith" <kevin.j.smith@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Searching for k3PGP
> Hi Kevin, N3HKQ
>
> Tank you for your help.
> I have the emai address of John K3PGP john@xxxxx.xxx and my letters
> to him are not rejected and the problem is that he do not answere because
> probably he don't open the post.
> By the way if you can do someting I will be very happy because I need to
> talk with him about technical problems.
>
> Best 73" de
>
> i8CVS Domenico
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Smith" <kevin.j.smith@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: "'i8cvs'" <domenico.i8cvs@xxx.xx>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 4:48 AM
> Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Searching for k3PGP
>
>
> > Domenico,
> >
> > Perhaps you know of K3PGP's website. http://www.k3pgp.org/index.htm
> > Unfortunately he leaves no telephone number or email address. He seems
> very
> > protective of his privacy.
> >
> > Kevin Smith
> > N3HKQ
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
> > Behalf Of i8cvs
> > Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 8:43 PM
> > To: AMSAT-BB
> > Cc: K3PGP - John
> > Subject: [amsat-bb] Searching for k3PGP
> >
> > Hi All, in the list
> >
> > I am in need to contact the very popular EME'r John J. Yurek K3PGP but I
> got
> > no answere to many email send to my friend.
> > If someone lives close to Irvin, PA 15642 and know him please let me
know
> if
> > is still there or not.
> >
> > Tanks for any help.
> >
> > 73" de
> >
> > i8CVS Domenico
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 13
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:41:42 -0500
From: "Alan P. Biddle" <APBIDDLE@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S Band Activity 08/2009
To: "'John Papay'" <john@xxxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <FB98CD62E2C948468D014B5B000D4F97@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
John,
Interesting report. It was good to work you during the last V/S period. I
have been on that mode for years, as well as L/S, but you quickly get your
WAS, Worked All Stations. Glad to see that the number is expanding.
I came across a G3RUH 60 cm dish with a circularly polarized patch antenna.
It was originally used for AO-40, and so it is superb on AO-51. I have an
SSB LNA mounted directly at the feed, and use some old RF-213 to feed the
signal about 65' to the converter in the shack. There is plenty of gain,
and using hard line is unneeded. In fact, I have a variable attenuator to
balance the gain properly. Works fine, horizon to horizon. In fact, I see
more distinct limitations when using the mode-L uplink.
Alan
WA4SCA
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:19:27 -0300
From: Bruce Robertson <ve9qrp@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: High LEO for cubesat?
To: bruninga@xxxx.xxx
Cc: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<49657a760908250619q17988497red8f40676061e239@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Robert Bruninga<bruninga@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
>> Much of the debate on the board here arises
>> from our common desire to see the launching
>> of satellites with a larger footprint.
>
> For what it is worth, this semester I will finally get a student
> to work on the 40 year old AMSAT idea of a water rocket. ?(Carry
> water to orbit and use solar power to electrolizie the wate to
> H2 and O2 and then burn those in a thruster to raise the orbit
> of a cubesat.
Bob --
Thanks for letting us know about this. It sounds very interesting. As
the water would be under far less pressure than, the nitrogen (e.g.)
in a cold-gas thruster, would the water/electrolysis system be
considered safer to launch? I can see the argument being made that a
leak in a water container would likely ruin a great number of things
on the launch than would an inert gas. OTOH, the (I presume) low
pressure would reduce the likelihood of a leak.
> Mostly the goal is to get from the very low (short lived) LEO to
> a higher LEO to get longer life, but it will be fun to get this
> project going again. ?I had a working model about a dozen years
> ago, but it eventually blew up.. ?Now we will get another one
> built probably...
If such a system were used in flight, instructors could do simple
electrolysis of H2O and combustion on the ground to illustrate the
process quite vividly!
73, Bruce
VE9QRP
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 429
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
