| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 18.07.10 15:50l 904 Lines 35387 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB5310
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V5 310
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<DK0WUE<IK6ZDE<VE2PKT<CX2SA
Sent: 100718/1337Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:7570 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB5310
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: AO-7 Record (Dee)
2. Re: AO-7 Record (James Duffey)
3. Re: AO-7 Record (Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF)
4. Re: AO-7 Record (Andrew Glasbrenner)
5. Re: AO-7 Record (James Duffey)
6. Re: AO-7 Record (Andrew Glasbrenner)
7. Re: AO-7 Record (Bob- W7LRD)
8. AMSAT 2010 Space Symposium Call for Papers (Mark Thompson)
9. Re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 5, Issue 309 (saguaroastro@xxx.xxxx
10. TISAT (PY5LF)
11. NO5X SK (John Geiger)
12. Re: AO-7 Record (K8KFJ@xxx.xxxx
13. Re: AO-7 Record (Greg D.)
14. AJ9K in EN66 (dlittel tds.net)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 15:59:54 -0400
From: Dee <morsesat@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-7 Record
To: "'Peter Portanova'" <roic@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <3329263BE63148BF9CB667C8D5AE6876@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Especially when we "need" them to operate from(thru), eh Pete?
73, Dee
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Peter Portanova
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:46 AM
To: amsat-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-7 Record
Mr. Duffy,
I glad that you mentioned those individuals who made incredible sacrifices
of their time and expertise to launch AO-7. However, I can't think of too
many satellites that have "come back to life" call it luck and possibly
another force that also contributed to this marvelous piece of engineering
to still be giving us enjoyment and world records!
73's Pete
WB2OQQ
www.massapequanyweather.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: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 15:14:30 -0600
From: James Duffey <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-7 Record
To: Peter Portanova <roic@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: James Duffey <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>, Amsat-bb BB
<amsAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <771567A2-8ED1-4038-8315-549245346CEB@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Jul 17, 2010, at 9:46 AM, Peter Portanova wrote:
> However, I can't think of too many satellites that have "come back to
life" call it luck and possibly
> another force that also contributed to this marvelous piece of engineering
> to still be giving us enjoyment and world records!
Most commercial satellites are turned off or decommissioned when they reach
the end of their useful life. In amateur radio, we operate under a different
paradigm, that is we can and will use the space asset as long as it is
viable. In the commercial world it is usually not economically viable to
support an aging satellite when the assets can be applied to a newer
satellite with more economic potential. That is why we seldom see commercial
satellites come back to life.
In the amateur realm, I believe only RS10-RS11 have been turned off, and
that was unintentional. Apparently it is irreversible. Others have deorbited.
There has been a significant change in the philosophy of what to do with
aging and failed or failing satellites since AO-7 was launched. Early on
pretty much a "who cares?" attitude dominated as satellites were left to
fail and left in orbit. WIth orbital slots scarce these days and spectrum
even scarcer, it is generally not considered good space engineering practice
to let a spacecraft up to its own devices at the end of its life. It is
considered good practice to ensure that the aging satellite will deorbit, or
go into an orbit where it will not interfere with other active satellites.
Although it is a great engineering feat to have our hardware still partially
operational after 36 years in orbit, in some sense it is a bit embarrassing
to have hardware in orbit that we cannot control. Fortunately, in AO-7s case
the inability to control the satellite is largely benign.
One reason for decommissioning satellites is that rules governing their
operation change over time. The 432 uplink for AO-7 now lies outside the
WARC allocation for the Amateur Satellite Service, and it does not conform
to the IARU band plan for satellite uplinks. The uplink is in the weak
signal portion of the 70cm band, which is much more used these days than in
1974, and the uplink to AO-7 can cause a problem during high activity, such
as 70cm.
We are fortunate to have another linear satellite to use, but we need to be
mindful of the consequences of having a satellite in space that we cannot
fully control. - Duffey
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:31:18 +0000
From: Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-7 Record
To: James Duffey <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat-bb BB <amsAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <4C422126.40407@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Don't worry about it.
The US doesn't comply with the IARU bandplans on any of the HF bands either.
On 17-Jul-10 21:14, James Duffey wrote:
and it does not conform to the IARU band plan
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 17:55:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andrew Glasbrenner <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-7 Record
To: James Duffey <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter Portanova
<roic@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat-bb BB <amsAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<8316923.1279403730411.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
-----Original Message-----
>From: James Duffey <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> Although it is a great engineering feat to have our hardware still
partially operational after 36 years in orbit, in some sense >it is a bit
embarrassing to have hardware in orbit that we cannot control. Fortunately,
in AO-7s case the inability to control >the satellite is largely benign.
>
Let me clarify something here for the record, especially since it keeps
coming up. We absolutely DO have the ability to command AO-7, including a
command set that will result in the satellite being silenced permanently.
There simply is not much operational advantage to it, even when in
continuous illumination. The ability to ceaase transmissions is all that is
required of us by the FCC; I just hope we never have to do it. You do not
have to look to hard to find other amateur satellites that are derelicts
though...
Additionally, although not stated in this discussion, there is much
misconception about the legality of Mode B with the 432 uplink. AMSAT has an
FCC waiver that is still in effect, so using the 432 is completely legal for
US operators, at least. As it is an uplink, there is absolutely no ill
effect AO-7 can have on terrestrial 432 operations. I just noticed a few
days ago that the AO-7 entry on wikipedia is 100% wrong on this and needs to
be corrected. Maybe someone more familiar with wikipedia than I will do so
after seeing this email.
73, Drew KO4MA
AMSAT-NA VP Operations
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 17:20:45 -0600
From: James Duffey <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-7 Record
To: Andrew Glasbrenner <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: James Duffey <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>, Amsat-bb BB
<amsAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <00A88C54-E0DB-4168-9509-B3264F0B8AD2@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Drew - Thanks for the comments and shedding light on this topic.
On Jul 17, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
> Let me clarify something here for the record, especially since it keeps
coming up. We absolutely DO have the ability to command AO-7, including a
command set that will result in the satellite being silenced permanently.
There simply is not much operational advantage to it, even when in
continuous illumination. The ability to ceaase transmissions is all that is
required of us by the FCC; I just hope we never have to do it. You do not
have to look to hard to find other amateur satellites that are derelicts
though...
I did not know this. Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for stating that we
were flying a satellite we cannot control and I am sorry for adding to the
confusion on this issue. It will not happen again.
> Additionally, although not stated in this discussion, there is much
misconception about the legality of Mode B with the 432 uplink. AMSAT has an
FCC waiver that is still in effect, so using the 432 is completely legal for
US operators, at least.
As you say, I did not say that Mode B was illegal and did not mean to imply
that it was illegal. But it does fall outside the general guidelines for
amateur satellite operations today and we should consider that issue when we
use it on Mode B.
I based my comments on the AMSAT Satellite Summary of AMSAT Oscar AO-7
located on the AMSAT website. See:
< http://www.amsat.org/amsat/sats/n7hpr/ao7.html >
Which contains the following two paragraphs:
"*Note: Due to changes in Amateur Service and Amateur Satellite Service
there are questions as to legality of Amateurs transmitting to AO-7. The
uplink frequency predates the WARC '79 allocation of 435-438 MHz by the ITU
for the Amateur Satellite Service and places the uplink in 70cm weak signal
segment.'
"Potential users should realize that when they are uplinking to a satellite,
they are no longer operating in the Amateur Service but instead operating in
the Amateur Satellite Service. Thus they are subject to Amateur Satellite
Service rules. Therefore uplinking to AO-7 is possibly illegal since the
Amateur Satellite Service is not permitted at 432.1 MHz. Also, since the
IARU bandplan has the 432.1 MHz range earmarked as "weak signal" in all
three Regions, it would appear that all users trying to access the uplink
are also outside the Amateur Satellite Service rules and regulations."
The AMSAT web page is a prominent return when one searches for Oscar 7 on
Google. Thanks for pointing out that these statements are incorrect, or at
the very least, overcautious.
> As it is an uplink, there is absolutely no ill effect AO-7 can have on
terrestrial 432 operations.
I agree for the most part, AO-7 uplink on 70cm will in general have little
effect on 432 operations. But to say it has absolutely no ill effect is
hyperbole. Consider this situation. A multi contest station is looking for
QSOs on 70 cm Sunday evening and tunes across someone calling CQ in the
uplink passband. The contest station thinks it is a terrestrial station in
the contest and calls him. The station calling in the uplink hears the
contest station on the satellite downlink and they have a QSO, exchanging
signal strengths and grid squares. The contest station logs the contact and
moves on. The multistation owner later gets a QSL from the station in the
uplink claiming a satellite contact since he copied the contest station on
the downlink. THe multistation owner realizes that his multistation has
violated the contest rule that prohibits satellite operation in contests.
Respecting the rules, he withdraws his submission and asks that it be
considered a check log and is out !
of the competition with a very good score. This is an unusual case, I grant
you, but I have been "distracted," for want of a better word, a time or two
by satellite users in the OSCAR 7 uplink during a contest until I realize
that they are not terrestrial stations in the contest, but trying to uplink
to Oscar 7. Usually it is obvious, occasionally it is not. No harm done,
other than the waste of a few minutes. I suspect that a few others may have
had similar experiences.
If satellite operators on the 70 cm uplink are aware of their proximity to
the 70cm calling frequency, particularly during contests, and call CQ
Satellite, and mention that they are on the satellite during the QSO, then
the impact of having the AO-7 uplink close to the 432.1 weak signal calling
frequency can be minimized.
> I just noticed a few days ago that the AO-7 entry on wikipedia is 100%
wrong on this and needs to be corrected. Maybe someone more familiar with
wikipedia than I will do so after seeing this email.
The Wikipedia entry is pretty much a verbatim quote of the AMSAT satellite
summary on the AMSAT page and cites it as a source, which makes sense, so
changing the information I quoted above on the AMSAT summary is a good start
on getting it changed on Wikipedia. When the citation goes away the
Wikipedia entry will have less value. I don't contribute to Wikipedia, but I
can learn how to change this if that is what is warranted. It won't help
much to change the secondary source, Wikipedia, when the primary source,
AMSAT, remains unchanged though.
Again Drew, thanks for your comments on this issue. I have revised my
thinking on Oscar 7 control. - Duffey
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:02:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andrew Glasbrenner <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-7 Record
To: James Duffey <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat-bb BB <amsAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<28940203.1279411368727.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
-----Original Message-----
>From: James Duffey <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>
>I based my comments on the AMSAT Satellite Summary of AMSAT Oscar AO-7
located on the AMSAT website. See:
>
>< http://www.amsat.org/amsat/sats/n7hpr/ao7.html >
>
>Which contains the following two paragraphs:
>
>"*Note: Due to changes in Amateur Service and Amateur Satellite Service
there are questions as to legality of Amateurs transmitting to AO-7. The
uplink frequency predates the WARC '79 allocation of 435-438 MHz by the ITU
for the Amateur Satellite Service and places the uplink in 70cm weak signal
segment.'
>
>"Potential users should realize that when they are uplinking to a
satellite, they are no longer operating in the Amateur Service but instead
operating in the Amateur Satellite Service. Thus they are subject to Amateur
Satellite Service rules. Therefore uplinking to AO-7 is possibly illegal
since the Amateur Satellite Service is not permitted at 432.1 MHz. Also,
since the IARU bandplan has the 432.1 MHz range earmarked as "weak signal"
in all three Regions, it would appear that all users trying to access the
uplink are also outside the Amateur Satellite Service rules and regulations."
>
>The AMSAT web page is a prominent return when one searches for Oscar 7 on
Google. Thanks for pointing out that these statements >are incorrect, or at
the very least, overcautious.
Those pages are leftovers from the previous version of the website, and the
only way you can get to them is via Google. I have asked Gould and Rick to
take them down as you are not the first to point to them as sources of
outdated information.
>
>> As it is an uplink, there is absolutely no ill effect AO-7 can have on
terrestrial 432 operations.
>
>I agree for the most part, AO-7 uplink on 70cm will in general have little
effect on 432 operations. But to say it has absolutely >no ill effect is
hyperbole.
Until you can point to this actually happening, I don't think it's hyperbole
at all. I've been around a contest or two (check September's limited rover
scores) and I've never had a qso above 432.120. Terrestrial SSB users would
even be on the wrong sideband from the sat users. The FCC says it's OK, I'm
not going to worry about it until it's a problem. I'll leave it at that, and
we can agree to disagree perhaps.
73, Drew KO4MA
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:14:55 +0000 (UTC)
From: Bob- W7LRD <w7lrd@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-7 Record
To: James Duffey <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat-bb BB <amsAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<861138267.163960.1279412095952.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xx.xxxx.xxxxx
xx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
When there is vhf/uhf contest going on I occasionally hear a contester on
the AO-7 downlink.? However due to fact that AO-7 has an inverting band pass
the UHF uplink which is USB comes down LSB.? This of course is unknown to
the contester.? Whereas everyone using AO-7 uplinks in LSB so that we
receive in USB on the 145mhz downlink.? This way I can tell who is the
unintentional satellite operator.? I think I got that right.
73 Bob W7LRD
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Duffey" <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Andrew Glasbrenner" <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "James Duffey" <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>, "Amsat-bb BB"
<amsAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 4:20:45 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-7 Record
Drew - Thanks for the comments and shedding light on this topic.
On Jul 17, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
> Let me clarify something here for the record, especially since it keeps
coming up. We absolutely DO have the ability to command AO-7, including a
command set that will result in the satellite being silenced permanently.
There simply is not much operational advantage to it, even when in
continuous illumination. The ability to ceaase transmissions is all that is
required of us by the FCC; I just hope we never have to do it. You do not
have to look to hard to find other amateur satellites that are derelicts
though...
I did not know this. Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for stating that we
were flying a satellite we cannot control and I am sorry for adding to the
confusion on this issue. It will not happen again.
> Additionally, although not stated in this discussion, there is much
misconception about the legality of Mode B with the 432 uplink. AMSAT has an
FCC waiver that is still in effect, so using the 432 is completely legal for
US operators, at least.
As you say, I did not say that Mode B was illegal and did not mean to imply
that it was illegal. But it does fall outside the general guidelines for
amateur satellite operations today and we should consider that issue when we
use it on Mode B.
I based my comments on the AMSAT Satellite Summary of AMSAT Oscar AO-7
located on the AMSAT website. See: ?
< http://www.amsat.org/amsat/sats/n7hpr/ao7.html >
Which contains the following two paragraphs:
"*Note: Due to changes in Amateur Service and Amateur Satellite Service
there are questions as to legality of Amateurs transmitting to AO-7. The
uplink frequency predates the WARC '79 allocation of 435-438 MHz by the ITU
for the Amateur Satellite Service and places the uplink in 70cm weak signal
segment.'
"Potential users should realize that when they are uplinking to a satellite,
they are no longer operating in the Amateur Service but instead operating in
the Amateur Satellite Service. Thus they are subject to Amateur Satellite
Service rules. Therefore uplinking to AO-7 is possibly illegal since the
Amateur Satellite Service is not permitted at 432.1 MHz. Also, since the
IARU bandplan has the 432.1 MHz range earmarked as "weak signal" in all
three Regions, it would appear that all users trying to access the uplink
are also outside the Amateur Satellite Service rules and regulations."
The AMSAT web page is a prominent return when one searches for Oscar 7 on
Google. Thanks for pointing out that these statements are incorrect, or at
the very least, overcautious.
> As it is an uplink, there is absolutely no ill effect AO-7 can have on
terrestrial 432 operations.
I agree for the most part, AO-7 uplink on 70cm will in general have little
effect on 432 operations. But to say it has absolutely no ill effect is
hyperbole. Consider this situation. A multi contest station is looking for
QSOs on 70 cm Sunday evening and tunes across someone calling CQ in the
uplink passband. The contest station thinks it is a terrestrial station in
the contest and calls him. The station calling in the uplink hears the
contest station on the satellite downlink and they have a QSO, exchanging
signal strengths and grid squares. The contest station logs the contact and
moves on. The multistation owner later gets a QSL from the station in the
uplink claiming a satellite contact since he copied the contest station on
the downlink. THe multistation owner realizes that his multistation has
violated the contest rule that prohibits satellite operation in contests.
Respecting the rules, he withdraws his submission and asks that it be
considered a check log and is out !
!
?of the competition with a very good score. This is an unusual case, I grant
you, but I have been "distracted," for want of a better word, a time or two
by satellite users in the OSCAR 7 uplink during a contest until I realize
that they are not terrestrial stations in the contest, but trying to uplink
to Oscar 7. Usually it is obvious, occasionally it is not. No harm done,
other than the waste of a few minutes. I suspect that a few others may have
had similar experiences.
If satellite operators on the 70 cm uplink are aware of their proximity to
the 70cm calling frequency, particularly during contests, and call CQ
Satellite, and mention that they are on the satellite during the QSO, then
the impact of having the AO-7 uplink close to the 432.1 weak signal calling
frequency can be minimized.
> I just noticed a few days ago that the AO-7 entry on wikipedia is 100%
wrong on this and needs to be corrected. Maybe someone more familiar with
wikipedia than I will do so after seeing this email.
The Wikipedia entry is pretty much a verbatim quote of the AMSAT satellite
summary on the AMSAT page and cites it as a source, which makes sense, so
changing the information I quoted above on the AMSAT summary is a good start
on getting it changed on Wikipedia. When the citation goes away the
Wikipedia entry will have less value. I don't contribute to Wikipedia, but I
can learn how to change this if that is what is warranted. It won't help
much to change the secondary source, Wikipedia, when the primary source,
AMSAT, remains unchanged though.
Again Drew, thanks for your comments on this issue. I have revised my
thinking on Oscar 7 control. - 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: 8
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Thompson <wb9qzb_groups@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] AMSAT 2010 Space Symposium Call for Papers
To: nimrods@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Cc: k9jkm@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <460150.20950.qm@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
AMSAT 2010 Space Symposium Call for Papers
________________________________
The September 1 deadline of the call for papers for the 2010 AMSAT
Space Symposium and Annual Meeting is rapidly approaching! So far
the Proceedings crew has received two abstracts for papers - thank
you!
The abstract for your paper does not require any special format.
Simply send an e-mail to the Proceedings Editor, K9JKM with the
basic information: Author Name, Callsign, and a few sentences that
describe your proposed topic. I'll be looking forward to receiving
your abstracts in my in-box at k9jkm@xxxxxxx.xxx.
The Symposium Committee invites proposals for:
+ Papers for publication in the Proceedings
+ Symposium Presentations
+ Poster Presentations
+ Equipment and Operating Demonstrations
These can be on any topic of interest to the amateur satellite
community. We request a tentative title of your presentation as
soon as possible, with final copy submitted by September 1, 2010
for inclusion in the printed proceedings.
To help you prepare your paper the Symposium Committee has posted
an author's guide on the AMSAT.org web page:
http://tinyurl.com/2djjnmx
The 2010 AMSAT Space Symposium and Annual Meeting will be held
October 8 - 10 at the Chicago/Elk Grove Holiday Inn which is near
O'Hare Airport.
73,
JoAnne K9JKM
2010 Symposium Proceedings Editor
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:44:04 -0400
From: <saguaroastro@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 5, Issue 309
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Cc: amsat-bb-request@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <20100717214404.0NYXM.66364.imail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>To: "Nick Pugh K5QXJ" <quadpugh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Cc: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 2:20 PM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: tisat-1
>
It is not listed under the name TiSAt but is listed as "2010-035B"
73,
Rick Tejera
K7TEJ, DM33vq
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 23:33:32 -0300
From: "PY5LF" <py5lf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] TISAT
To: "'Mineo Wakita'" <ei7m-wkt@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <001201cb2621$9dd6d6f0$d98484d0$@xxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello
TISAT heard over SA .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSyVSY4IICg
73
PY5LF
LUCIANO FABRICIO
CURITIBA-PR-BRAZIL
GG54JM
<http://www.qrz.com/db/py5lf> http://www.qrz.com/db/py5lf
<http://www.falautomation.com.br/> www.falautomation.com.br
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Geiger <aa5jg@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] NO5X SK
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <331998.57377.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
For those of you who have worked NO5X on the sats, I am sad to inform you
that he became a SK in the past couple of days. I met John twice in person
back in May when buying some equipment from him, and he was a great guy. I
will miss hearing him on the birds.
73s John AA5JG
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 23:23:12 EDT
From: K8KFJ@xxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-7 Record
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <37aa3.6fa3548b.3973cda0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
In a message dated 7/17/2010 5:26:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx writes:
< In the amateur realm, I believe only RS10-RS11 have been turned
off,
Speaking of the Russian birds, I found a QSL card the other day dated
September
2000 for a RS-13 QSO with K?SU in CW. The card shows a 148 MHz uplink and
a 29 MHz downlink. The Russian birds were great fun.
73, Gary -K8KFJ-
Sat VUCC #125
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:02:42 -0700
From: "Greg D." <ko6th_greg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-7 Record
To: <w7lrd@xxxxxxx.xxx>, <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <BLU133-W2892929FFFE7B7344C5455A9BE0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
... and if I recall, this was a much more common occurrence on RS-12/13,
where its mode KT uplink on 15 meters saw quite a number of casual QSOs
being relayed over to 10 meters via the satellite. Nobody really seemed to
be bothered by that. Why would AO-7 be any different?
Greg KO6TH
> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:14:55 +0000
> From: w7lrd@xxxxxxx.xxx
> To: jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx
> CC: amsAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-7 Record
>
>
>
> When there is vhf/uhf contest going on I occasionally hear a contester on
the AO-7 downlink. However due to fact that AO-7 has an inverting band pass
the UHF uplink which is USB comes down LSB. This of course is unknown to
the contester. Whereas everyone using AO-7 uplinks in LSB so that we
receive in USB on the 145mhz downlink. This way I can tell who is the
unintentional satellite operator. I think I got that right.
>
> 73 Bob W7LRD
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Duffey" <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: "Andrew Glasbrenner" <glasbrenner@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Cc: "James Duffey" <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>, "Amsat-bb BB"
<amsAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 4:20:45 PM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-7 Record
>
> Drew - Thanks for the comments and shedding light on this topic.
>
> On Jul 17, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
>
> > Let me clarify something here for the record, especially since it keeps
coming up. We absolutely DO have the ability to command AO-7, including a
command set that will result in the satellite being silenced permanently.
There simply is not much operational advantage to it, even when in
continuous illumination. The ability to ceaase transmissions is all that is
required of us by the FCC; I just hope we never have to do it. You do not
have to look to hard to find other amateur satellites that are derelicts
though...
>
> I did not know this. Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for stating that
we were flying a satellite we cannot control and I am sorry for adding to
the confusion on this issue. It will not happen again.
>
> > Additionally, although not stated in this discussion, there is much
misconception about the legality of Mode B with the 432 uplink. AMSAT has an
FCC waiver that is still in effect, so using the 432 is completely legal for
US operators, at least.
>
> As you say, I did not say that Mode B was illegal and did not mean to
imply that it was illegal. But it does fall outside the general guidelines
for amateur satellite operations today and we should consider that issue
when we use it on Mode B.
>
> I based my comments on the AMSAT Satellite Summary of AMSAT Oscar AO-7
located on the AMSAT website. See:
>
> < http://www.amsat.org/amsat/sats/n7hpr/ao7.html >
>
> Which contains the following two paragraphs:
>
> "*Note: Due to changes in Amateur Service and Amateur Satellite Service
there are questions as to legality of Amateurs transmitting to AO-7. The
uplink frequency predates the WARC '79 allocation of 435-438 MHz by the ITU
for the Amateur Satellite Service and places the uplink in 70cm weak signal
segment.'
>
> "Potential users should realize that when they are uplinking to a
satellite, they are no longer operating in the Amateur Service but instead
operating in the Amateur Satellite Service. Thus they are subject to Amateur
Satellite Service rules. Therefore uplinking to AO-7 is possibly illegal
since the Amateur Satellite Service is not permitted at 432.1 MHz. Also,
since the IARU bandplan has the 432.1 MHz range earmarked as "weak signal"
in all three Regions, it would appear that all users trying to access the
uplink are also outside the Amateur Satellite Service rules and regulations."
>
> The AMSAT web page is a prominent return when one searches for Oscar 7 on
Google. Thanks for pointing out that these statements are incorrect, or at
the very least, overcautious.
>
> > As it is an uplink, there is absolutely no ill effect AO-7 can have on
terrestrial 432 operations.
>
> I agree for the most part, AO-7 uplink on 70cm will in general have little
effect on 432 operations. But to say it has absolutely no ill effect is
hyperbole. Consider this situation. A multi contest station is looking for
QSOs on 70 cm Sunday evening and tunes across someone calling CQ in the
uplink passband. The contest station thinks it is a terrestrial station in
the contest and calls him. The station calling in the uplink hears the
contest station on the satellite downlink and they have a QSO, exchanging
signal strengths and grid squares. The contest station logs the contact and
moves on. The multistation owner later gets a QSL from the station in the
uplink claiming a satellite contact since he copied the contest station on
the downlink. THe multistation owner realizes that his multistation has
violated the contest rule that prohibits satellite operation in contests.
Respecting the rules, he withdraws his submission and asks that it be
considered a check log and is ou!
t !
> of the competition with a very good score. This is an unusual case, I
grant you, but I have been "distracted," for want of a better word, a time
or two by satellite users in the OSCAR 7 uplink during a contest until I
realize that they are not terrestrial stations in the contest, but trying to
uplink to Oscar 7. Usually it is obvious, occasionally it is not. No harm
done, other than the waste of a few minutes. I suspect that a few others may
have had similar experiences.
>
> If satellite operators on the 70 cm uplink are aware of their proximity to
the 70cm calling frequency, particularly during contests, and call CQ
Satellite, and mention that they are on the satellite during the QSO, then
the impact of having the AO-7 uplink close to the 432.1 weak signal calling
frequency can be minimized.
>
> > I just noticed a few days ago that the AO-7 entry on wikipedia is 100%
wrong on this and needs to be corrected. Maybe someone more familiar with
wikipedia than I will do so after seeing this email.
>
> The Wikipedia entry is pretty much a verbatim quote of the AMSAT satellite
summary on the AMSAT page and cites it as a source, which makes sense, so
changing the information I quoted above on the AMSAT summary is a good start
on getting it changed on Wikipedia. When the citation goes away the
Wikipedia entry will have less value. I don't contribute to Wikipedia, but I
can learn how to change this if that is what is warranted. It won't help
much to change the secondary source, Wikipedia, when the primary source,
AMSAT, remains unchanged though.
>
> Again Drew, thanks for your comments on this issue. I have revised my
thinking on Oscar 7 control. - 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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 has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:
en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 08:32:38 -0500
From: "dlittel tds.net" <dlittel@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] AJ9K in EN66
To: Amsat Reflector <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTin38s7N7rHUGEKz8TGrVOw8-ae4CMYqvF2KQtzw@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I will be vacationing in the Michigan Upper Peninsula from 7/18 to 22 and
hope to work the FM sats from EN66, 56, 57 and maybe EN76.
Dan
AJ9K
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 310
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
