| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 14.04.10 01:38l 798 Lines 26651 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB5165
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V5 165
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<DK0WUE<7M3TJZ<HS1LMV<DB0ZAV<CX2SA
Sent: 100414/0035Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:52973 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB5165
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Space Debris: Predicted near impact for AO-51 (Larry Teran)
2. Re: Yaesu FT-847 vs. Kenwood TS-2000? (Sebastian)
3. Re: Most Hams in Space at one time? (Robert Bruninga)
4. Re: Space Debris: Predicted near impact for AO-51 (B J)
5. Re: Email etiquette - was Re: Re: Moon (Tony Langdon)
6. Re: Email etiquette - was Re: Re: Moon (Gordon JC Pearce)
7. Re: Most Hams in Space at one time? (Steven Bienvenu)
8. Re: Email etiquette - was Re: Re: Moon (Gregg Wonderly)
9. Re: Most Hams in Space at one time? (Michael Tondee)
10. Re: Yaesu FT-847 vs. Kenwood TS-2000? (John Becker, W?JAB)
11. Re: Email etiquette - was Re: Re: Moon (John Magliacane)
12. You Know What's Really Annoying? (Joel Black)
13. Re: Email etiquette - was Re: Re: Moon
(Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604)
14. Re: You Know What's Really Annoying? (Michael Tondee)
15. Re: Email etiquette - was Re: Re: Moon (Idle-Tyme)
16. Re: Email etiquette - was Re: Re: Moon
(Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604)
17. Re: Space Debris: (Stephen Melachrinos)
18. Re: Yaesu FT-847 vs. Kenwood TS-2000? (Edward Cole)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:33:44 -0700
From: Larry Teran <ki6yaa@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Space Debris: Predicted near impact for AO-51
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<o2r91dafd721004131233xb84b06ccic0fb41fa5654fc4f@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Did AO-51 survived the approach?
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Greg D. <ko6th_greg@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> Is it just a coincidence that these warnings seem to be coming pretty often
> recently, or did NORAD change their reporting procedures, or is all the junk
> up there getting to critical mass where nothing is safe? It seems like
> we're heading into a situation like nuclear fission, where you get enough
> stuff interacting, and it sets up a chain reaction of collisions.
>
> Greg KO6TH
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:16:59 -0400
> > From: K3IO@xxxxxxx.xxx
> > To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Space Debris: Predicted near impact for AO-51
> >
> > On 4/11/2010 11:45 PM, Tom Clark, K3IO wrote:
> > > The Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg AFB has reported that
> > > AO-51 will have a ~200 meter (i.e. 2 football fields) approach to
> > > object #34890 at 08:51Z on April 13th.
> > The Joint Space Command sent an update -- their latest prediction has
> > reduced the 200 meter miss distance to ~135 meters
> >
> > 73, Tom
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your
> inbox.
>
>
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:
en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:02:52 -0400
From: Sebastian <w4as@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Yaesu FT-847 vs. Kenwood TS-2000?
To: AMSAT BB <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <3DD358E5-EE65-436C-8B68-FFB4998628B4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Having owned both of them, here are my personal observations:
TS-2000 can't send 12 volts via the coax line for preamps;
TS-2000 has double the power on 2 meters;
TS-2000 is available with 1.2 GHz;
FT-847 doesn't have VOX;
FT-847 has been discontinued for several years, can be difficult to find in
the used market, and replacement parts in the near future may be difficult
to find.
I still own the 2000, but regret getting rid of the 847.
73 de W4AS
On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Bill Dzurilla wrote:
> Any thoughts on the pros and cons of each of these rigs, particularly for
satellite work? The used price for each is about the same, maybe a little
higher for a fairly new TS-2000. I am aware of the TS-2000 birdie issue.
>
> 73, Bill NZ5N
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:16:47 -0400
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Most Hams in Space at one time?
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <EB91352E8201414594A59AABE2D60863@xxxxx.xxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>> Is this the most hams in space to date ...
>
> ... I DO know it is the largest group of
> Non-Active hams in space at one time.
I'm tired of the lack of civility in today's times. Why is it
that so many people seem to spend their time complaining about
what others do. What happened to the golden rule?
In an all volunteer service and individual hobby, there is never
any benefit to criticizing how one thinks others should use
their ham radio time. Its our hobby, we should do what we can
with it, and encourage and support those that are active. There
just is nothing forward serving in complaining about others.
Do what we can, and/or get out of the way of what others want to
do. But no amount of complaining ever acomplishes anything in
ham radio other than denegrate us all.
Bob, WB4APR
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: B J <top_gun_canada@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Space Debris: Predicted near impact for AO-51
To: Larry Teran <ki6yaa@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <221468.469.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- On Tue, 4/13/10, Larry Teran <ki6yaa@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> From: Larry Teran <ki6yaa@xxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Space Debris: Predicted near impact for AO-51
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Received: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 1:33 PM
> Did AO-51 survived the approach?
<snip>
There were several stations operating over it during today's 1400 UTC pass
over western North America.
Bernhard VA6BMJ @ DO33FL
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:12:58 +1000
From: Tony Langdon <vk3jed@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Email etiquette - was Re: Re: Moon
To: Tom Azlin N4ZPT <n4zpt@xxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4bc4e024.8109cc0a.6ee1.02fb@xx.xxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 04:50 AM 4/14/2010, Tom Azlin N4ZPT wrote:
>Guess times change. Top posting is the standard on some reflectors.
>Especially with folks reading using small screens.
Doesn't bother me either way, provided people trim unnecessary quotes
from their emails. I prefer things done in order, like this message,
but as long as it's possible to follow the conversation, I'm fine with it. :)
In order of increasing annoyance:
Properly quoted messages with trimmed quotes. May be more than one
part of quoted text with new comments following. - This is my
preferred format.
Top posting with quotes trimmed - Also a good option, and probably
the easiest for users of Outlook to manage.
No quoting at all - This can cause confusion, as there is no context.
Top posting without trimming quotes - Now we're starting to waste
bandwidth, especially on mobile devices. However, this format is a
good one when forwarding emails, and is in common business usage,
where it is often the most appropriate format, e.g. "Can you please
respond to this customer's query...".
Bottom posting without trimming quotes - This is HIGHLY annoying,
especially for mobile users. People reading the email have to scroll
through pages of quotes, to see anything new. And it's several times
as many screens on a mobile device to get through all that crud...
Improperly quoted email - Emails where it is difficult to tell quoted
material from new material (usually because of careless formatting)
are particularly difficult to follow.
Fully quoted email, no new content - Why repost an email without
commenting on it? A total waste of bandwidth, and a waste of the
reader's time.
In all cases, quoting of mailing list footers is particularly
annoying, as this adds no useful value.
Think of your readers. Email rules are changing, IMHO, and compared
to traditional "Netiquette", you'll notice these tips are very open
and flexible. :) We're certainly no longer reading email over a 300
baud modem, but our screen sizes may be _much_ larger (i.e. just
about every desktop) or smaller (mobile devices) than the traditional
40x24 or 80x24 text only formats that were dominant back then. For
some of us, mobile bandwidth does cost serious money.
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:30:51 +0100
From: Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Email etiquette - was Re: Re: Moon
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <1271194251.22622.16.camel@xxxxx.xxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 14:50 -0400, Tom Azlin N4ZPT wrote:
> Guess times change. Top posting is the standard on some reflectors.
> Especially with folks reading using small screens.
>
Top posting makes no sense, and on small screens makes it damn near
impossible to follow what's going on.
Gordon MM0YEQ
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:37:47 -0500
From: "Steven Bienvenu" <sbienv@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Most Hams in Space at one time?
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <C18D7B719DB74D4097480A4A41BB3252@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
I'll co-sign that document.
Steve W5ZA
>
> I'm tired of the lack of civility in today's times. Why is it
> that so many people seem to spend their time complaining about
> what others do. What happened to the golden rule?
>
> In an all volunteer service and individual hobby, there is never
> any benefit to criticizing how one thinks others should use
> their ham radio time. Its our hobby, we should do what we can
> with it, and encourage and support those that are active. There
> just is nothing forward serving in complaining about others.
>
> Do what we can, and/or get out of the way of what others want to
> do. But no amount of complaining ever acomplishes anything in
> ham radio other than denegrate us all.
>
> Bob, WB4APR
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 9.0.790 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2806 - Release Date: 04/12/10
01:32:00
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:42:06 -0500
From: Gregg Wonderly <w5ggw@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Email etiquette - was Re: Re: Moon
To: Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp@xxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4BC4E52E.3050706@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 14:50 -0400, Tom Azlin N4ZPT wrote:
>> Guess times change. Top posting is the standard on some reflectors.
>> Especially with folks reading using small screens.
>>
>
> Top posting makes no sense, and on small screens makes it damn near
> impossible to follow what's going on.
Gordon, I think it depends on what you are replying to, and the content you
include. Sometimes, I have something related, but not point-by-point to say
about a post. Including some context, and top-posting is a smart thing to
do in
that case, because it lets people read your reply, and if they care about the
subject, they can scroll down to see the details that you are replying too.
If
they don't care, then no more scrolling is necessary to look for your reply
verses the content you quoted and posted response to.
Gregg Wonderly
W5GGW
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:53:28 -0400
From: Michael Tondee <mat_62@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Most Hams in Space at one time?
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4BC4E7D8.9050606@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi Bob,
I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. Unfortunately if you tune
across the bands or surf this list and other amateur radio forums you
will find that, just as in everyday life, some folks just are not happy
unless they have something to complain about. Without question it does
seem more prevalent in the ham ranks though. I probably won't make many
friends by saying that but it's the truth.
73,
Michael, W4HIJ
On 4/13/2010 4:16 PM, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>>> Is this the most hams in space to date ...
>>>
>> ... I DO know it is the largest group of
>> Non-Active hams in space at one time.
>>
> I'm tired of the lack of civility in today's times. Why is it
> that so many people seem to spend their time complaining about
> what others do. What happened to the golden rule?
>
> In an all volunteer service and individual hobby, there is never
> any benefit to criticizing how one thinks others should use
> their ham radio time. Its our hobby, we should do what we can
> with it, and encourage and support those that are active. There
> just is nothing forward serving in complaining about others.
>
> Do what we can, and/or get out of the way of what others want to
> do. But no amount of complaining ever acomplishes anything in
> ham radio other than denegrate us all.
>
> Bob, WB4APR
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:52:12 -0500
From: "John Becker, W?JAB" <w0jab@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Yaesu FT-847 vs. Kenwood TS-2000?
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20100413164227.0454d800@xxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I can only speak for the 847.
Have 2 and keeping both.
for what it's worth.
also have 2 840's. One in mounted in the ford F-150
see -
<http://www.hamradio-dv.org/aor/digital-ssb/fellow-users/fellow-users-pics/w0j
ab/w0jab-stn.htm>http://www.hamradio-dv.org/aor/digital-ssb/fellow-users/fello
w-users-pics/w0jab/w0jab-stn.htm
John, W0JAB
At 11:41 AM 4/13/2010, you wrote:
>Any thoughts on the pros and cons of each of these rigs, particularly for
satellite work? The used price for each is about the same, maybe a little
higher for a fairly new TS-2000. I am aware of the TS-2000 birdie issue.
>
>73, Bill NZ5N
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Magliacane <kd2bd@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Email etiquette - was Re: Re: Moon
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <915747.27361.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- On Tue, 4/13/10, Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Top posting makes no sense, and on small screens makes it damn near
> impossible to follow what's going on.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
73, de John, KD2BD :-)
--
Visit John on the Web at:
http://kd2bd.ham.org/
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:26:12 -0500
From: Joel Black <jbblack68@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] You Know What's Really Annoying?
To: AMSAT <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <4BC4EF84.2090800@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
A lot of you incessantly bitching about the inane. Talk about taking up
bandwidth... Yeah, I just took up your BW and bitched about the inane,
but at least I realize it.
Joel, W4JBB
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:50:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 <faunt@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Email etiquette - was Re: Re: Moon
To: kd2bd@xxxxx.xxx
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <20100413225030.3CB5133C25@xxxxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
But I've already read that message, and even can recall what it was
about, usually. I want to read the NEW contribution without having to
read all that again.
But if you've forgotten what went before, I have made a handy footnote
available to you.
So top posting often wins.
73, doug
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Magliacane <kd2bd@xxxxx.xxx>
> Top posting makes no sense, and on small screens makes it damn near
> impossible to follow what's going on.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:05:58 -0400
From: Michael Tondee <mat_62@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: You Know What's Really Annoying?
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4BC4F8D6.4050900@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
This E-mail?....Ding Ding Ding!!!! we have a winner! LOL!!!
Michael, W4HIJ
On 4/13/2010 6:26 PM, Joel Black wrote:
> A lot of you incessantly bitching about the inane. Talk about taking up
> bandwidth... Yeah, I just took up your BW and bitched about the inane,
> but at least I realize it.
>
> Joel, W4JBB
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2808 - Release Date: 04/13/10
02:32:00
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:06:09 -0500
From: Idle-Tyme <nss@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Email etiquette - was Re: Re: Moon
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4BC4F8E1.5060902@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
This getting as bad as the toilet paper roll over or roll under thing
geez guys.
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/13/2010 5:50 PM, Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote:
> But I've already read that message, and even can recall what it was
> about, usually. I want to read the NEW contribution without having to
> read all that again.
>
> But if you've forgotten what went before, I have made a handy footnote
> available to you.
>
> So top posting often wins.
>
> 73, doug
>
> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
> From: John Magliacane<kd2bd@xxxxx.xxx>
>
> > Top posting makes no sense, and on small screens makes it damn near
> > impossible to follow what's going on.
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 16
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:22:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 <faunt@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Email etiquette - was Re: Re: Moon
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <20100413232228.804F133C25@xxxxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
That depends on whether you have cats or not.
73, doug
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:06:09 -0500
From: Idle-Tyme <nss@xxx.xxx>
This getting as bad as the toilet paper roll over or roll under thing
geez guys.
On 4/13/2010 5:50 PM, Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote:
> But I've already read that message, and even can recall what it was
> about, usually. I want to read the NEW contribution without having to
> read all that again.
>
> But if you've forgotten what went before, I have made a handy footnote
> available to you.
>
> So top posting often wins.
>
> 73, doug
>
> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
> From: John Magliacane<kd2bd@xxxxx.xxx>
>
> > Top posting makes no sense, and on small screens makes it damn
near
> > impossible to follow what's going on.
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 17
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:22:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Stephen Melachrinos <melachri@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Space Debris:
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<28170546.171229.1271200954193.JavaMail.root@xxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Greg -
I didn't see anyone else reply, so I'll try.
No, it's not coincidence. After the Iridium collision last year, the US Air
Force decided it was in everyone's best interest for them to run conjunction
analyses against many more space objects than they had previously analyzed,
and report their predictions to system owners. Previously, their concern was
primarily the US government's spacecraft, so we (in the amateur community)
and many commercial operators never knew what was happening to our birds
unless we did (or paid for) the work ourselves. But the collision (as well
as the Chinese ASAT demonstration) showed that the resulting debris fields
were a major hazard to everyone, themselves included. So they must have
allocated more resources to the problem, as this is a massive undertaking.
(Note that some reports say that the US has about 20,000 objects that are
tracked and cataloged. In theory, this means propagating the ephemeris of
all of these for some number of days and comparing all possible combinations
across the ti!
me period of the analysis.)
Unfortunately, many (if not most) of the objects no longer have maneuvering
capability. If a vehicle can maneuver, these warnings give them time to try
and increase the separation prior to the predicted close approach. (You
might have heard of some times when a space shuttle does one of these
maneuvers.) But if you can't maneuver (as is the case with AO-51), all we
can do is watch and wait.
Steve
W3HF
Apr 13, 2010 01:45:32 AM, ko6th_greg@xxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> Is it just a coincidence that these warnings seem to be coming pretty
often recently, or did NORAD change their reporting procedures, or is
> all the junk up there getting to critical mass where nothing is safe? It
seems like we're heading into a situation like nuclear fission, where
> you get enough stuff interacting, and it sets up a chain reaction of
collisions.
>
> Greg KO6TH
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:32:39 -0800
From: Edward Cole <kl7uw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Yaesu FT-847 vs. Kenwood TS-2000?
To: "John Becker, W?JAB" <w0jab@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <201004140032.o3E0WeAA079773@xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
At 01:52 PM 4/13/2010, John Becker, W?JAB wrote:
>I can only speak for the 847.
>Have 2 and keeping both.
>
>for what it's worth.
>also have 2 840's. One in mounted in the ford F-150
>see -
>
>
><http://www.hamradio-dv.org/aor/digital-ssb/fellow-users/fellow-users-pics/w0
jab/w0jab-stn.htm>http://www.hamradio-dv.org/aor/digital-ssb/fellow-users/fell
ow-users-pics/w0jab/w0jab-stn.htm
>
>John, W0JAB
>
>
>
>At 11:41 AM 4/13/2010, you wrote:
> >Any thoughts on the pros and cons of each of
> these rigs, particularly for satellite
> work? The used price for each is about the
> same, maybe a little higher for a fairly new
> TS-2000. I am aware of the TS-2000 birdie issue.
> >
> >73, Bill NZ5N
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
I recently "robbed" my 401K to buy an
Elecraft-K3/10. I doing so I considered whether
to "cash-out" the FT-847. I decided until the
K3/10+144/28+432/28+computer dupilcated the
satellite functions of the FT-847, to keep
it. It has performed well since late 1998 when I
bought it. No experience with the TS-2000, but
the birdie thing would seriously Urk me if I had one.
BTW I had an FT-840 before getting the
FT-847. Fine old radio...best NB I ever
used. It was cashed-out to get the FT-847.
73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45
======================================
BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com
500-KHz/CW, 144-MHz EME, 1296-MHz EME
DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa@xxxxxxx.xxx
======================================
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 5, Issue 165
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
