| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 25.01.11 04:00l 883 Lines 29914 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB649
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V6 49
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<ON0AR<HS1LMV<DB0ZAV<CX2SA
Sent: 110125/0146Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:47447 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB649
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. APRS via Satellite (Luciano Gasparini)
2. Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs (Crownhaven)
3. Cell Phone based Sats (Ron Overdrive)
4. Anyone going to Palm Springs CA hamfest on Saturday (29th)?
(Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK))
5. Re: VUCC costs (Jeff Yanko)
6. Re: VUCC Costs (Jeff Yanko)
7. Re: Cell Phone based Sats (Trevor .)
8. Re: VUCC costs (John Geiger)
9. Re: VUCC costs (Jeff Yanko)
10. AMSAT VUCC and WAS (wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxxx
11. reply from arrl on new vucc fees (Bruce)
12. Re: AMSAT VUCC and WAS (Dave Webb KB1PVH)
13. TubeSats: a victory? (George Henry)
14. Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs (Tim Marek)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:07:12 +0000
From: Luciano Gasparini <nachif@xxxxx.xxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] APRS via Satellite
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <3073.1295903232@xxxxx.xxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Which APRS satellites are active and may be reached with a Kenwood
THD-72? I'm trying to get some people interested in our hobby.
Comments are welcomed!
73,
Luciano PT9KK
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:09:18 -0600
From: Crownhaven <crownhaven@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
To: Tim Marek <K7XC@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, 'VHF REFLECTOR'
<vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <4D3DEA7E.6010507@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I couldn't agree more with Tim. It is easier to get a card out of
Bhutan than it is from some of these VHF ops that operate on a regular
basis. I would love to print the list of calls that I have here that
will just not respond to an SASE. I won't because I'm typically
castigated whenever I bring the issue up. I realize this is a hobby as
the defenders of the non-QSLers love to point out but replying to a card
is part of that hobby. Or used to be. At least post prominently
wherever your call is displayed that you won't QSL. Or something.
Steve, N4JQQ, EM55
On 1/24/2011 1:36 PM, Tim Marek wrote:
> John and the rest of you LOTW doubters...
>
> The costs to use LOTW for VUCC, DXCC, or WAS contact credits IS
> NOTHING compared to the time, effort and money needed to collect cards
> the old fashioned way! At near a buck a card domestically (Over 2$
> Internationally) for the stamps to send them and as well as a SASE for
> their return.... all the waiting.... Lost or stolen mail, People who
> NEVER reply, followed by dealing with the cards after their collected,
> the hand sorting and filling in paper forms... what a royal pain and
> more importantly... a very inneficient way to do things...
>
> With the new LOTW system, you simply upload your logs, wait for them
> to cross confirm with other uploaded logs, spend less than 20 cents
> per QSO to INSTANTLY use those QSL credits for awards, with little
> muss or fuss...
>
> I really dont see what the problems is.... Its faster, safer, cheaper,
> and your log data is backed up forever.... Talk about a lasting legacy
> of your efforts!
>
> Compared to the OLD FASHIONED way of handling the laborious chore of
> QSLing, LOTW is a God send saving me much time, money, and alot of
> hand writing that I truly hate. (Try living in a rare state and you
> will understand)
>
> As one who has personally activated 57 grids at one time or another
> (Alot of them RARE), there is now a incentive to sort out and upload
> all those logs from the past 20 years. Not only will it help others
> who need those rare grids (CM86, CM95, CM96, CN90, CN91, CN92, DN00,
> DN10, DN11, DN20, DM07, DM17, DM18, DM19, DM27, DM28, and DM29 just to
> name a few) but... I can now file for additional 6M VUCC's from
> several of those grids as they were June Contest efforts from tall
> mountains with large antennas and KW power where more than 100 Grids
> was easily accomplished...
>
> Think about it... "Nothing Is Free"... the prices they ask are
> reasonable, and once uploaded who better to back up your logs than
> those whom you apply to for the awards!
>
> Personally, I dont understant why everyone isn't getting setup right
> now to dump their logs online to (at the very least protect those rare
> and precious contacts from being lost forever) and collect those
> contact credits w/o lifting a pen to paper or licking a single stamp...
>
> 73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm.... sk
>
> PS: I have been pushing LOTW for years to make this happen. Its not
> perfect, but compared to the old ways, its a VAST IMPROVEMENT!
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>; "Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>;
> "'VHF REFLECTOR'" <vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 2:07 PM
> Subject: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
>
>
>> I WAS going to get an endorsement for my satellite and six meter
>> VUCCs, but given that it would cost me around 35 dollars each to get
>> an endorsement for an extra 150 grids, I don't think so. Hope this
>> new insane fee schedule doesn't kill VUCC submissions. I think AMSAT
>> awards will be getting much more popular. 73s John AA5JG
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>
>> To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
>> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:25 PM
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
>>> Nice explanation of the costs for VUCC in the Jeff Yanko blog.
>>> However, I did not see what happens with LOTW submisions.
>>> If the cost of awards keep going up, maybe the ARRL should offer
>>> award insurance as well as equipment insurance. Just a thought. :>)
>>> Merle, AA4QE
> ------
> Submissions: vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx
> Subscription/removal requests: vhf-request@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx
> Human list administrator: vhf-approval@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx
> List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:21:17 -0500
From: Ron Overdrive <ronoverdrive@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Cell Phone based Sats
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<AANLkTim=ybxZpi7wWL+J4=PZ9LzQx6_bsCQ7cqMPgiHK@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12253228
Considering how powerful smart phones have gotten I'm happy to see someone
take the chance to see how well a cell phone holds up to LEO situations. If
successful it may open the door to more homebrew amateur satellites by
simplifying the construction and possibly lowering the cost. Just thought I
would share even though it seems like its yesterday's news.
~73, AC2RF Ron
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:22:28 -0800 (PST)
From: "Patrick STODDARD \(WD9EWK/VA7EWK\)" <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Anyone going to Palm Springs CA hamfest on
Saturday (29th)?
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <980410.11224.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi!
I'm planning on making the trek across the desert to attend the hamfest
at Palm Springs CA on Saturday (29 January). I have not decided on
whether to drive over Friday evening after work, or set out early
Saturday morning. Unlike most hamfests I attend, this one won't open
up until 0930 local (1730 UTC), so a true day-trip over there and back
is a possibility. Are there any other satellite operators - besides
Clint K6LCS, who will have an AMSAT table at the hamfest - be there?
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:23:13 -0800
From: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
To: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>, <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>,
"Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, "'VHF REFLECTOR'"
<vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <82B4CEB2D7FC4862BAF3F0DBACBAB84D@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hi John,
It's funny how HQ never came out and stated there would be new fees
beginning of the new year. Then again why would you want to scare away
potential customers? In any case, I finally took my cards over to the local
card checker to have him verify them for VUCC Satellite. My cost? $47.40.
I understand it's a one time deal for the initial application, which this
was, and there costs involved. Just the 20 cent per QSO fee cost me $27.40
alone. That's more than the award cost itself. Actually, more than twice
of what the award cost. Doesn't make any economical or logical sense if you
ask me. I don't believe I'll be doing many, if any, endorsements of VUCC at
the current fees level.
73,
Jeff WB3JFS
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>; "Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>; "'VHF
REFLECTOR'" <vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 6:07 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
>I WAS going to get an endorsement for my satellite and six meter VUCCs, but
> given that it would cost me around 35 dollars each to get an endorsement
> for
> an extra 150 grids, I don't think so. Hope this new insane fee schedule
> doesn't kill VUCC submissions. I think AMSAT awards will be getting much
> more popular.
>
> 73s John AA5JG
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>
> To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:25 PM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
>
>
>> Nice explanation of the costs for VUCC in the Jeff Yanko blog. However, I
>> did
>> not see what happens with LOTW submisions.
>>
>> If the cost of awards keep going up, maybe the ARRL should offer award
>> insurance
>> as well as equipment insurance. Just a thought. :>)
>>
>> Merle, AA4QE
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 6
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:30:23 -0800
From: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC Costs
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, "John Papay" <john@xxxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <8DAB14AD164444FBB7E8A7BD98A1C7CC@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hi John,
You're right about the costs. I just looked at the costs for a big HF
mailing. I bought 25 - 98 cent air mail stamps for $24.50. Ordered $65
dollars in return postage stamps from Bill Plum. (IRC's don't seem to get a
good return rate compared to return postage stamps. Plus the P.O. always
seems to screw up the stamping of the IRC so it becomes invalid.) So for
about $90 one can get 35 QSL's returned, if the other party co-operates.
That's why I've been stressing the use of LoTW and it makes much more sense
to pay 17.5 cents per QSO than pay nearly $3.00 for a piece of paper via the
mail.
73,
Jeff WB3JFS
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Papay" <john@xxxxxx.xxx>
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 6:36 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC Costs
> The new fee schedule has brought forth a lot of
> comments. Twenty cents a card seems like a lot of
> money but consider how much you spent to get that card.
>
> An SASE with a stamp on it plus the stamp for sending
> it here in the US costs you $.88. If you send for a
> DX card to countries other than Canada and Europe, it's
> $.98 for the postage and an IRC costs $2.10. If you are
> lucky, you will get a DX card back for $3.08. If you're
> not lucky, you'll send for it again hoping to get a reply.
>
> Then there's the cost of the cards to add in, maybe $.10 each,
> and the envelopes, hopefully self seal so the other guy doesn't
> have to spend time moistening and sealing it. Maybv
>
>
> So after you spent all that money to get the card, spending
> another $.20 to submit it for VUCC doesn't seem all that bad.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:44:16 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Trevor ." <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Cell Phone based Sats
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <417601.99708.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
--- On Mon, 24/1/11, Ron Overdrive <ronoverdrive@xxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> If successful it may open the door to more homebrew amateur
> satellites by simplifying the construction and possibly lowering
> the cost.
I'm also interested in seeing how the Pulse Plasma Thrusters on this
satellite perform.
73 Trevor M5AKA
Daily Amateur Radio Email/RSS News: http://www.southgatearc.org/
Email Your News To: editor at southgatearc.org
Or Upload At: http://www.southgatearc.org/news/your_news_1.htm
----
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:33:19 -0000
From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
To: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>, "Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org"
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <3442A86CEDAE4A26BCC10C2E80BB9C94@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Even at the 16 cent a QSO LOTW fee that sure is a jump up in price from what
it used to be. I am afraid I won't be able to afford many endorsements.
maybe AMSAT can offer their own version of a satellite VUCC.
73s John AA5JG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
To: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>; <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>;
"Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>; "'VHF REFLECTOR'"
<vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
> Hi John,
>
> It's funny how HQ never came out and stated there would be new fees
> beginning of the new year. Then again why would you want to scare away
> potential customers? In any case, I finally took my cards over to the
> local card checker to have him verify them for VUCC Satellite. My cost?
> $47.40. I understand it's a one time deal for the initial application,
> which this was, and there costs involved. Just the 20 cent per QSO fee
> cost me $27.40 alone. That's more than the award cost itself. Actually,
> more than twice of what the award cost. Doesn't make any economical or
> logical sense if you ask me. I don't believe I'll be doing many, if any,
> endorsements of VUCC at the current fees level.
>
>
>
> 73,
>
> Jeff WB3JFS
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>; "Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>;
> "'VHF REFLECTOR'" <vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 6:07 AM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
>
>
>>I WAS going to get an endorsement for my satellite and six meter VUCCs,
>>but
>> given that it would cost me around 35 dollars each to get an endorsement
>> for
>> an extra 150 grids, I don't think so. Hope this new insane fee schedule
>> doesn't kill VUCC submissions. I think AMSAT awards will be getting much
>> more popular.
>>
>> 73s John AA5JG
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>
>> To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
>> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:25 PM
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
>>
>>
>>> Nice explanation of the costs for VUCC in the Jeff Yanko blog. However,
>>> I
>>> did
>>> not see what happens with LOTW submisions.
>>>
>>> If the cost of awards keep going up, maybe the ARRL should offer award
>>> insurance
>>> as well as equipment insurance. Just a thought. :>)
>>>
>>> Merle, AA4QE
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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: 9
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:47:01 -0800
From: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
To: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>, "Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org"
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <D1181E71B92B4634AD12A229BCA750B8@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Hi John,
At 16 cents per QSO LoTW VUCC fee is more affordable than what we are
currently doing. Let me explain. Let's say you make 100 QSO's with 100
grids. Instead of sending out QSLs with SASE's at a total of 88 cents a
piece, 44 cents to send and 44 cents for return, one QSO will cost you 16
cents. Period. So requesting QSL's via the P.O will cost you $88. A
confirmation of the same 100 grids via LoTW will cost you $16. A savings of
$72. Big difference. Now, the big problem. Getting those who operate the
birds to upload their logs to LoTW. It won't work unless most participate,
that's the sad part.
73,
Jeff WB3JFS
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>; "Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org"
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
> Even at the 16 cent a QSO LOTW fee that sure is a jump up in price from
> what it used to be. I am afraid I won't be able to afford many
> endorsements. maybe AMSAT can offer their own version of a satellite VUCC.
>
> 73s John AA5JG
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
> To: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>; <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>;
> "Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>; "'VHF REFLECTOR'"
> <vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 10:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
>
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> It's funny how HQ never came out and stated there would be new fees
>> beginning of the new year. Then again why would you want to scare away
>> potential customers? In any case, I finally took my cards over to the
>> local card checker to have him verify them for VUCC Satellite. My cost?
>> $47.40. I understand it's a one time deal for the initial application,
>> which this was, and there costs involved. Just the 20 cent per QSO fee
>> cost me $27.40 alone. That's more than the award cost itself. Actually,
>> more than twice of what the award cost. Doesn't make any economical or
>> logical sense if you ask me. I don't believe I'll be doing many, if any,
>> endorsements of VUCC at the current fees level.
>>
>>
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Jeff WB3JFS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
>> To: <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>; "Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>;
>> "'VHF REFLECTOR'" <vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 6:07 AM
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
>>
>>
>>>I WAS going to get an endorsement for my satellite and six meter VUCCs,
>>>but
>>> given that it would cost me around 35 dollars each to get an endorsement
>>> for
>>> an extra 150 grids, I don't think so. Hope this new insane fee schedule
>>> doesn't kill VUCC submissions. I think AMSAT awards will be getting
>>> much
>>> more popular.
>>>
>>> 73s John AA5JG
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>
>>> To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
>>> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:25 PM
>>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
>>>
>>>
>>>> Nice explanation of the costs for VUCC in the Jeff Yanko blog. However,
>>>> I
>>>> did
>>>> not see what happens with LOTW submisions.
>>>>
>>>> If the cost of awards keep going up, maybe the ARRL should offer award
>>>> insurance
>>>> as well as equipment insurance. Just a thought. :>)
>>>>
>>>> Merle, AA4QE
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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: 10
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:11:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] AMSAT VUCC and WAS
To: AMSAT <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<714188764.1823107.1295914272204.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xxxx.xxx
xxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Maybe we all can talk AMSAT into offering a WAS and VUCC I would be nice to
see an AMSAT WAS on the wall
WA4HFN Damon
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:25:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Bruce <kk5do@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] reply from arrl on new vucc fees
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <253752.30769.qm@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
okay, here is what bill moore, nc1l, the head guy for the arrl awards has to
say
about the new structure for the awards. note at the bottom, if you are
submitting your first ever award with 50 lotw and 50 cards, you must submit
two
separate applications and two separate fees.
this is self explanatory (don't shoot the messenger).
73...bruce
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "Moore, Bill, NC1L (ARRL Awards Branch)" <nc1l@xxxx.xxx>
To: bruce paige <kk5do@xxxx.xxx>
Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 6:14:19 PM
Subject: RE: National Association for Amateur Radio Website Form
Hi Bruce:
?
Here is how the new fees work:
?
First, for VUCC there is no Hybrid application like there is for DXCC and WAS.
?
For paper applications:
?
$7.00 application fee
Each QSO is $0.20
$1.00 postage
$12.00 for each certificate
?
LoTW Applications:
?
$5.00 application fee
Each QSO in LoTW is $0.16
$1.00 for paperwork postage
$12.00 for each certificate
?
Eg: If someone has a first time ever Satellite VUCC with 250 QSOs the fees
would
be:
?
$7.00 for the application
$50.00 for 250 QSOs @ $0.20 each
$12.00 for the certificate
$1.00 for paperwork/sticker return
?
His total would be $70.00
?
If he has LoTW and Paper both categories would apply above since we do not
have
hybrids anymore.
?
Basically, the application fee went down and other fees were adjusted.
?
Regards
?
?
?
If someone needs 100 for a first time ever and they have 50 LoTW and 50 paper,
they would do each application, separately, and the fees for each application
apply as noted above.
?
?
Bill Moore NC1L
Awards Branch?Manager
ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio?
225 Main Street
Newington, CT 06111
Telephone: (860) 594 0234
Fax: (860) 594-0346
email: dxcc@xxxx.xxx
DXCC Web Site:?www.arrl.org/awards/dxcc
Blog: http://www.arrl.org/awards-blog
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:49:21 -0500
From: Dave Webb KB1PVH <kb1pvh@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AMSAT VUCC and WAS
To: wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: AMSAT <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTinzmENv2Nng8XfkAXZ8hOAhjad_d8J6gpyU75jJ@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I second that!!
Dave - KB1PVH
Sent from my Verizon Wireless DROID X
On Jan 24, 2011 7:22 PM, <wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Maybe we all can talk AMSAT into offering a WAS and VUCC I would be nice
to see an AMSAT WAS on the wall
> WA4HFN Damon
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:57:56 -0600
From: "George Henry" <ka3hsw@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] TubeSats: a victory?
To: "amsat bb" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <E0EAA68A2AC947279148602A37ABDBE2@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Well, it appears that someone got through to Interorbital Systems: as of
today, they are no longer including a transceiver in the TubeSat kit, the
TubeSat web page clearly states that licensing is required, and "for
information about commercial operations from space", directs viewers to
contact the FCC. (They're still a little technically borderline on some of
their info, but WAY better than claiming that they're license-free!)
They even include a link to the IARU Amateur Satellite Specification
document (under "information about obtaining the required amateur radio
frequency allocation").
Interestingly, the price hasn't changed...
George, KA3HSW
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:36:01 -0000
From: "Tim Marek" <K7XC@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
To: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>, <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>,
"Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, "'VHF REFLECTOR'"
<vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <60534B066CFA43F0A2022AA953E68072@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
John and the rest of you LOTW doubters...
The costs to use LOTW for VUCC, DXCC, or WAS contact credits IS NOTHING
compared to the time, effort and money needed to collect cards the old
fashioned way! At near a buck a card domestically (Over 2$ Internationally)
for the stamps to send them and as well as a SASE for their return.... all
the waiting.... Lost or stolen mail, People who NEVER reply, followed by
dealing with the cards after their collected, the hand sorting and filling
in paper forms... what a royal pain and more importantly... a very
inneficient way to do things...
With the new LOTW system, you simply upload your logs, wait for them to
cross confirm with other uploaded logs, spend less than 20 cents per QSO to
INSTANTLY use those QSL credits for awards, with little muss or fuss...
I really dont see what the problems is.... Its faster, safer, cheaper, and
your log data is backed up forever.... Talk about a lasting legacy of your
efforts!
Compared to the OLD FASHIONED way of handling the laborious chore of QSLing,
LOTW is a God send saving me much time, money, and alot of hand writing that
I truly hate. (Try living in a rare state and you will understand)
As one who has personally activated 57 grids at one time or another (Alot of
them RARE), there is now a incentive to sort out and upload all those logs
from the past 20 years. Not only will it help others who need those rare
grids (CM86, CM95, CM96, CN90, CN91, CN92, DN00, DN10, DN11, DN20, DM07,
DM17, DM18, DM19, DM27, DM28, and DM29 just to name a few) but... I can now
file for additional 6M VUCC's from several of those grids as they were June
Contest efforts from tall mountains with large antennas and KW power where
more than 100 Grids was easily accomplished...
Think about it... "Nothing Is Free"... the prices they ask are reasonable,
and once uploaded who better to back up your logs than those whom you apply
to for the awards!
Personally, I dont understant why everyone isn't getting setup right now to
dump their logs online to (at the very least protect those rare and precious
contacts from being lost forever) and collect those contact credits w/o
lifting a pen to paper or licking a single stamp...
73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm.... sk
PS: I have been pushing LOTW for years to make this happen. Its not perfect,
but compared to the old ways, its a VAST IMPROVEMENT!
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>; "Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>; "'VHF
REFLECTOR'" <vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 2:07 PM
Subject: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
>I WAS going to get an endorsement for my satellite and six meter VUCCs, but
>given that it would cost me around 35 dollars each to get an endorsement
>for an extra 150 grids, I don't think so. Hope this new insane fee schedule
>doesn't kill VUCC submissions. I think AMSAT awards will be getting much
>more popular. 73s John AA5JG
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>
> To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:25 PM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
>> Nice explanation of the costs for VUCC in the Jeff Yanko blog. However, I
>> did not see what happens with LOTW submisions.
>> If the cost of awards keep going up, maybe the ARRL should offer award
>> insurance as well as equipment insurance. Just a thought. :>)
>> Merle, AA4QE
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 49
***************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
