| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 23.01.11 22:04l 721 Lines 22474 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB646
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V6 46
Path: IZ3LSV<IW0QNL<IK6ZDE<VE3UIL<ZS0MEE<CX2SA
Sent: 110123/2002Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:47200 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB646
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. KB3QLK/P FM28 Delaware 1700z 1/30 - 1700z 1/31 (Zachary Beougher)
2. Re: SwissCube BFSK decoded (Mineo Wakita)
3. SatPC32 Cat doppler problem (Richard Ferryman)
4. Re: SatPC32 Cat doppler problem (Alan P. Biddle)
5. Re: SatPC32 Cat doppler problem (Erich Eichmann)
6. Re: VUCC QSO costs (Jeff Yanko)
7. Re: oscar 11 (Clive Wallis)
8. AMSAT-BB Rotor Interface Yaesu 5500 Digest, Vol 6, Issue
45 (Louis House, KD5GM)
9. Offtopic: Daiwa NS663PA Schematics (PE0SAT)
10. Fw: UPDATE: DELFI C3 Close Approach (Peter Portanova)
11. Delfi-C3 1000 days in orbit (wouter weggelaar)
12. Antenna Observations/Question (Richard Lawn)
13. Echoes of Apollo Call for Student Investigators & Adult
Engineering Mentors (JoAnne Maenpaa)
14. Re: VUCC QSO costs (John Neeley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:58:29 -0500
From: "Zachary Beougher" <zack.kd8ksn@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] KB3QLK/P FM28 Delaware 1700z 1/30 - 1700z 1/31
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <SNT111-DS1674090717E96BCFBCE4AFB3FA0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi,
Jamie, KB3QLK, will be doing a demo(s) for his club during Winter Field Day
this Saturday-Sunday (30-31). He will be operating the birds using his
personal call before the event, then he will be using the club?s call,
KB3BHL, during the event. This will be a good opportunity for any stations
(especially the western stations) to work DE for WAS.
Good luck with the QSOs!
Zack
KD8KSN
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:43:22 +0900
From: "Mineo Wakita" <ei7m-wkt@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SwissCube BFSK decoded
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <0BE1128B6D90433390BB54B9AB40D08B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-2022-jp";
reply-type=original
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your suggestion.
I used TNC emulation of MixW3 and OnlineKiss+.
And I got three kiss, hex, and dump files.
I corrected about DownlinkForwarder at the latter half
of the next page.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/hamradio/je9pel/swiscube.htm
I will correct it a little more later about how to
grab a housekeeping data in this page.
JE9PEL, Mineo Wakita
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:02:48 -0000
From: "Richard Ferryman" <richardferryman@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] SatPC32 Cat doppler problem
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <7EDF87DBE4AA48D6A9D7D46E1D2A4470@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I find SatPC32 is failing to read doppler information for some satellites
although the doppler.sqf entry seems correct. The CAT window show no CAT
data and the 'Data Line' at the bottom shows the last line of doppler.sqf.
Any ideas?
Thanks de Dick G4BBH
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 04:16:37 -0600
From: "Alan P. Biddle" <APBIDDLE@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SatPC32 Cat doppler problem
To: "'Richard Ferryman'" <richardferryman@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <1C38EF53BA6F453D8F5951B2EDC3C1C6@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Richard,
That usually happens when the name of the satellite in the DOPPLER.SQF file
does not EXACTLY match the name of the satellite in the source of Doppler
information. For instance "AO-51" vice "ECHO (AO-51)." The Keps
distributed by AMSAT all use the standard designations, but many of the
other sources have other information in the name line. One way to solve
this is to look at the AMSATNAMES.TXT file in the Auxiliary Files section of
Help, "?." It allows SATPC32 to identify the satellites from their official
designations and use the common name.
Alan
WA4SCA
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Richard Ferryman
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 3:03 AM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] SatPC32 Cat doppler problem
I find SatPC32 is failing to read doppler information for some satellites
although the doppler.sqf entry seems correct. The CAT window show no CAT
data and the 'Data Line' at the bottom shows the last line of doppler.sqf.
Any ideas?
Thanks de Dick G4BBH
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 12:09:44 +0100
From: "Erich Eichmann" <erich.eichmann@xxxxxxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SatPC32 Cat doppler problem
To: "Richard Ferryman" <richardferryman@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <E6FF3FE84A8243A58560C14E65BDE318@xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Richard,
on my website www.dk1tb.de, English page "Downloads, sect. 6, you will find
detailed instructions about how to add new satellites to SatPC32. See also
the FAQs file on that page and the tutorial by Wayne Estes, W9AE, that can
be downloaded here:
http://www.dk1tb.de/W9AE_Tutorial.htm
73s, Erich, DK1TB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Ferryman" <richardferryman@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 10:02 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] SatPC32 Cat doppler problem
>I find SatPC32 is failing to read doppler information for some satellites
>although the doppler.sqf entry seems correct. The CAT window show no CAT
>data and the 'Data Line' at the bottom shows the last line of doppler.sqf.
>Any ideas?
> Thanks de Dick G4BBH
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 03:26:33 -0800
From: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC QSO costs
To: "Rick - WA4NVM" <wa4nvm@xxxxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <D627C267368644D6AD9B21ABF1B4DD6E@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Hi Rick,
That's the way I'm interpreting it as well. For me, my fees would add up to
nearly $50 for my initial application.
73,
Jeff WB3JFS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick - WA4NVM" <wa4nvm@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>; <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] VUCC QSO costs
>
>
> Hi Jeff and the BB,
>
> I just found both applications on the ARRL website. (the old form, date
> 2009,
> and the new form, date Jan. 2011) see following website:
>
> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Awards/VUCC%20App%202011.pdf
>
> It looks like instead of a flat $10 fee, they now have gone to multiple
> fees
> for postage, the application and number of contacts. If I'm
> comprehending
> this correctly, if you apply for additional VUCC sticker, in the US and a
> ARRL
> member, and turn in 60 cards, it would cost you the following:
>
> $1 postage, $7 application fee, and $.20 x 60 = $12 for a total of $20.00
>
> Is this correct? I welcome all replies, if not.
>
> 73 all,
>
> Rick WA4NVM
>
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I was just looking over the VUCC award application and noticed that they
>> now
>> charge 20 cents per QSO. Is this fee only applicable if cards are sent
>> to
>> HQ for submission or in general even if you take them to a card checker?
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Jeff WB3JFS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
>> program!
>> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 11:37:55 +0000
From: Clive Wallis <list1@xxxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: oscar 11
To: jerry <jkboxk@xxxxxxxx.xxx>, amsat <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <4D3C1313.90605@xxxxx.xx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi Jerry,
As others have said, it's not packet, but simple ASCII. You can decode
it with MIXW or with hardware decoders. See my website for full
details. Look at the latest report, which includes info to get you started.
HTH
73 Clive G3CWV
On 22/01/2011 16:50, jerry wrote:
> I attached an m wav recording of Oscar 11 on the morning pass . This is
what I usually hear on a good pass . Is there
> packet signal in there ? I've tried psk and afsk but never get a print ?
>
> Thanks
> Jerry WB5LHD
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 06:27:40 -0600
From: "Louis House, KD5GM" <kd5gm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] AMSAT-BB Rotor Interface Yaesu 5500 Digest,
Vol 6, Issue 45
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <A6238AD5EBAC40B2991CFCB3B482A8B9@xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hi Bill,
I am using the LVB tracker with the G-5500 and controlling them with the
SatPC-32 software.
My experience with this system has been very pleasing, straight forward and
plug & play. The documentation for the LVB is excellent and the same is
true for SatPC-32. Setting the calibration between the LVB and the G-5500
was a snap, with very easy to follow instructions.
Supporting AMSAT by purchasing the LVB is icing on the cake.
My 2 cents.
Best wishes,
LOUIS, KD5GM in EL29kq
CW, The original digital mode
AMSAT #37061: FIST #3606
>>> Message: 18
>>> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:20:10 -0500
>>> From: "Bill Gillenwater" <k3sv@xx.xxx>
>>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Rotor Interface Yaesu 5500
>>> To: "AmsatBBS" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
>>> Message-ID: <5E846EAFD8F649CCAAB7DDDDFD2B51A8@xxxxxx>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>> OK, a newbee question about interfacing rotors. I have a Yaesu 5500
>>> and I run PCSat32. What do I need between the rotor and the
>>> computer? I would like a few options. Do I need the Yaesu 232
>>> interface box or will a generic box do the job. If a generic box
>>> will work, which are the best for satellite work with PCSat32?
>>>
>>> Tnx 73 Bill K3SV
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
>> program!
>> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:46:41 +0100
From: "PE0SAT" <pe0sat@xxxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Offtopic: Daiwa NS663PA Schematics
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <20110123124641.9ABD6230C6@xx.xxxxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Hi,
Thanks for reading. I had to replace a LM358 in a Daiwa NS663PA SWR/power
meter and now I have to align the pep circuit.
Is there someone that can send me a copy of the schematics or maybe
the alignment method?
73 Jan PE0SAT
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 08:27:05 -0500
From: Peter Portanova <roic@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Fw: UPDATE: DELFI C3 Close Approach
To: amsat bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <B1B5A2179B664552A3386AD0861A3A1E@xxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=Windows-1252;
reply-type=original
For your observation and information..
73- Pete
WB2OQQ
www.massapequanyweather.com
http://www.qrz.com/db/WB2OQQ?
>
> The United States Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) has updated a
> predicted conjunction between DELFI C3 (SCC# 32789) and SCC# 28811.
>
> Primary Object: DELFI C3 (SCC# 32789)
> Secondary Object: SCC# 28811
> Time of Closest Approach: 24 JAN 2011 13:39 UTC
>
> Overall miss distance: 339 meters
> Radial (dU) miss distance: -117 meters
> In-Track (dV) miss distance: 309 meters
> Cross-track (dW) miss distance: 82 meters
>
> Primary Radial Error (U): 10 meters
> Primary In-track Error (V): 98 meters
> Primary Cross-track Error (W): 7 meters
>
> Secondary Radial Error (U): 10 meters
> Secondary In-track Error (V): 62 meters
> Secondary Cross-track Error (W): 4 meters
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:44:35 +0100
From: wouter weggelaar <pa3weg@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Delfi-C3 1000 days in orbit
To: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTi=s6=y2EELnfunNhiXfL6ZZWrZH5_-7xRmvARis@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi All,
Today is the 1000th day in orbit for Delfi-C3. The downlink is still
ok and telemetry shows no big degradations. This means Delfi-C3 is
still in good health.
Apart from the problems with the transponder and some occasional
resets and lockups, scientific data is still being received. Also,
this data is still forwarded by radio amateurs to our server. Once
again our big thanks for receiving Delfi-C3 and your continued support
of the project.
73
On behalf of the Delfi-C3 team
Wouter Weggelaar
PA3WEG
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 12:47:10 -0500
From: Richard Lawn <rjlawn@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Antenna Observations/Question
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<AANLkTi=1CLg1AGb27Eyz2LwnV6uw54F5U+MLDximE6E7@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I've been on the birds off an on for years. I have an M2 cir. polarized pair
at home QTH and am looking into a more modest installation for a summer
cottage. I've built the K5OE eggbeater imitations and founds them to be only
fair.I could by M2 eggbeater pair but I'm trying to do this on less $. I
also have an Arrow antenna which I've tried some with a HT with only fair
results. Any other suggestions out there? Mount the Arrow more permanently
but at a fixed elevation and use a simple rotor to change azimuth? How about
a homebrewed quagi? Any suggestions appreciated.
Rick
W2JAZ
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 12:20:45 -0600
From: "JoAnne Maenpaa" <k9jkm@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Echoes of Apollo Call for Student Investigators &
Adult Engineering Mentors
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <001201cbbb2a$40facd30$c2f06790$@xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I received this request too late to include in this week's ANS-023
bulletins so I'm forwarding the message to the amsat-bb to help get
the word out.
Please send your replies directly to Pat: apolloeme@xxxxx.xxx
--
73 de JoAnne K9JKM
k9jkm@xxxxx.xxx
Editor, AMSAT News Service
Echoes of Apollo Call for Student Investigators & Adult Engineering Mentors
Pat Barthelow, AA6EG of the Echoes of Apollo Project (the folks who
brought us the 70cm Arecibo EME activity) is working with kids on the
Google Science Fair. The students and adult mentors have devised a
simple experiment to measure the distance to the moon using Moon
Bounce.
Pat has several EME stations committed and is looking for more tech-
nical support. He is also looking for additional young Co-Primary
Investigators (Age 13-18) to participate.
Time is of the essence. Reply directly to: apolloeme@xxxxx.xxx
Pat says the students will develop the experiment, lead, analyze.
Adults are needed to nurture, guide, mentor with these goals in mind:
+ Key a CW transmission or alternatively, send an audio impulse via
microphone to EME TX.
+ Starting the time clock on the impulse transmission whether Audio
"Clack" or CW key.
+ Recording for Science Fair presentation, using Multimedia video/audio
eqiupment in the Moon bounce Station.
+ Stopping the clock when the audio/RF does RT to moon (~2.5 Seconds)
and returns, and is demodulated by Moon bounce RX and presented at
Audio speaker terminals.
+ Pre-measure station delays in TX and RX to develop a constant for
internal equipment delays.
+ Measuring the EME interval as closely as possible, with simple
equipment, say, to millseconds. Probably take the Multimedia video/
audio to a Video editor, to measure delay, digitally.
+ Compare distance to the moon in the NASA, or US Naval Observatory
databases for their actual distance to moon, at the moment of the
experiment.
+ Student analyzes for errors, error sources, discusses return signal
distortion, due to doppler, Libration, pulse stretching, due to
spherical moon, etc.
+ Student suggests follow up experiment, to minimize measurement
errors, or assuming more sophisticated equipment became available.
QUESTION: For an analog RX to audio output, what would be the best
way be to measure the internal propagation delay in an [Analog, Digi-
tal] receiver, from the time of arrival of the RF at the Antenna con-
nector to demodulated output [Analog, Digital] at the speaker, or
computer screen.
For analog receivers, is the internal RX propagation delay, in order
of: microseconds? Milliseconds? For Digital receivers?
Best Regards,
Pat Barthelow, Echoes of Apollo
apolloeme@xxxxx.xxx
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 13:12:39 -0800 (PST)
From: John Neeley <w6zkh@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC QSO costs
To: Bruce Paige <kk5do@xxxxx.xxx>, Zachary Beougher
<zack.kd8ksn@xxxxxxx.xxx>, Rick - WA4NVM <wa4nvm@xxxxxxx.xxx>, Jeff
Yanko <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <332765.65832.qm@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Bruce is the best, and very timely.......appreciate all that he does in
working
as a volunteer card checker and awards manager for Amsat...
John W6ZKH
________________________________
From: Bruce Paige <kk5do@xxx.xxx>
To: Zachary Beougher <zack.kd8ksn@xxxxxxx.xxx>; John Neeley <w6zkh@xxx.xxx>;
Rick - WA4NVM <wa4nvm@xxxxxxx.xxx>; Jeff Yanko <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>;
amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Sent: Sat, January 22, 2011 7:58:40 AM
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC QSO costs
no, if you take or send your cards to an arrl awards manager (i am one for
vucc,
was and 5bwas), you do not pay anything other than a check to the arrl for the
cost of your award plus the postage to return your cards to you (if you did
not
take them in person). we are not allowed to accept any fee for checking cards,
we volunteer to do this for other hams. i became an awards manager long ago
when
there was none in houston and i had to send my cards to san antonio. i have
checked many a card since then.
73...bruce
________________________________
From: Zachary Beougher <zack.kd8ksn@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: John Neeley <w6zkh@xxx.xxx>; Rick - WA4NVM <wa4nvm@xxxxxxx.xxx>; Jeff
Yanko
<wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>; amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Sent: Sat, January 22, 2011 8:38:51 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC QSO costs
Do you need to pay the card checker the $.20/QSO, or is that only if you
send them directly to ARRL??
I agree with Rick - the wording is not very clear.
Zack
KD8KSN
-----Original Message-----
From: John Neeley
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 9:07 AM
To: Rick - WA4NVM ; Jeff Yanko ; amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC QSO costs
Sounds like to me all the better to find a Card Checker in your area before
sending anything to ARRL. Save on postage, etc. Hopefully the Card Checker
wont want his cut too now? Sign of the times, it looks like to me...
John W6ZKH
#37184
________________________________
From: Rick - WA4NVM <wa4nvm@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jeff Yanko <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>; amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Sent: Sat, January 22, 2011 4:54:02 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC QSO costs
Hi Jeff and the BB,
I just found both applications on the ARRL website. (the old form, date
2009,
and the new form, date Jan. 2011) see following website:
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Awards/VUCC%20App%202011.pdf
It looks like instead of a flat $10 fee, they now have gone to multiple fees
for postage, the application and number of contacts. If I'm comprehending
this correctly, if you apply for additional VUCC sticker, in the US and a
ARRL
member, and turn in 60 cards, it would cost you the following:
$1 postage, $7 application fee, and $.20 x 60 = $12 for a total of $20.00
Is this correct? I welcome all replies, if not.
73 all,
Rick WA4NVM
> Hi all,
>
> I was just looking over the VUCC award application and noticed that they
> now
> charge 20 cents per QSO. Is this fee only applicable if cards are sent to
> HQ for submission or in general even if you take them to a card checker?
> Thanks in advance!
>
>
> 73,
>
> Jeff WB3JFS
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 6, Issue 46
***************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
