| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 25.01.11 05:24l 832 Lines 29739 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB650
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V6 50
Path: IZ3LSV<IW0QNL<VE2PKT<CX2SA
Sent: 110125/0311Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:47453 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB650
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs (Tim Marek)
2. Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs (Paul Kiesel)
3. Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs (Tim Marek)
4. help with pcsat32 - predictions wrong -e verything else is
correct (zach hillerson)
5. Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs (Sebastian)
6. Re: help with pcsat32 - predictions wrong -e verything else
is correct (Mark L. Hammond)
7. VUCC - n3fjp - what am I doing wrong? (Michael J. Wolthuis)
8. Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs (Jeff Yanko)
9. Re: help with pcsat32 - predictions wrong -e verything else
is correct (Jeff Yanko)
10. Re: reply from arrl on new vucc fees (John Geiger)
11. Re: help with pcsat32 - predictions wrong -e verything else
is correct (zach hillerson)
12. Re: reply from arrl on new vucc fees (Bob Herrell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:25:28 -0000
From: "Tim Marek" <K7XC@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
To: "Randy" <hamradio@xx.xxx>
Cc: "Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, 'VHF REFLECTOR'
<vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <CF50EBA09A11499A9990578BC43CEF80@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Hi Randy...
I spent weeks and weeks over 2 years hand typing ALL of my old paper logs
(HF and VHF) into a database program and kept it updated fairly regular till
2006 or so...
My old database didnt work well under the then latest version of windows and
it became a project that fell by the wayside..
2 years ago I sorted that file (100,000+ records) based my my callsign, then
on the grid I was in at the time... I took all the DM09 contatcts and dumped
them into LOTW. That filled in my DXCC, and WAS files fairly well for HF and
VHF... I then gathered up all the Cabrillo submission files from them to
now, signed them individually, and sublitted them to LOTW as well.
With the advent of LOTW VUCC support, I am now converting ALL my
files(sorted by call then location) into individual files, converting them
into the propper format, digitally sign, and then upload them into LOTW.
At that point, ALL of the data from my various ham radio efforts will then
be backed up at LOTW, and... in a position to be of use to me (and others)
for many years to come.
No one said it would be easy to get up to speed... Nothing worthwhile ever
is... you assumed I have done it all electronically from day one... I HAVE
NOT!
What I did do was the hard work of hand typing them all in (and yes it
sucked) but now all that hard work is showing me that it was all well worth
it.
73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm... sk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy" <hamradio@xx.xxx>
To: "Tim Marek" <K7XC@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
> Hi Tim:
> I agree LoTW will be a great thing for VUCC, especially for future,
> computer-logged contacts where uploading to LoTW is simple. But I wonder
> about older QSOs. I guess if you have lots of computer-logged QSOs and
> can convert them into VUCC compatible files easily, sure why not go ahead.
> But even for those, and especially for old paper logged QSOs, I wonder.
>
> For one thing, if somebody really wanted your QSL in the past (for VUCC or
> anything else) they would have already exchanged paper cards. And for
> another thing, I find that for my operating from CN74 and CN75, at least,
> I only get requests for cards from maybe 10% of the QSOs I make,
> indicating that nobody really cares about QSLs for the vast majority of
> QSOs, even from a semi-rare grid like CN74/CN75.
>
> Of course for an even rarer grid there would be some increase in QSL
> interest. But really, unless you are one of the extremely rare breed of
> operator that can see the possibility of actually getting ALL grids for
> FFMA in their lifetime, one grid is as just good as another, rare or not.
>
> So I guess my point is, as a by-product of computer logging of future
> QSOs, LoTW will be really great. Especially for operators that make large
> numbers of contacts each year. But as far as everyone hustling to put all
> their old QSOs in LoTW it seems like a lot of collective work with very
> little payback except to a very few.
>
> Randy, W7HR
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
>>
>> 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!
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1202 / Virus Database: 1435/3400 - Release Date: 01/24/11
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:15:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Kiesel <k7cw@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
To: John Geiger <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>, mlolmsted@xxxx.xxxx
"Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, "'VHF REFLECTOR'"
<vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Marek <K7XC@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <123132.44687.qm@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Tim,
I'm not a LotW doubter. I'm a LotW rejecter.
I've been in ham radio for 52 years and have always loved QSLing. I like to
QSL. I look at every card I receive and look forward to receiving cards for
the QSOs I make.
There have been times when the QSLiing chores were intense, like after
working hundreds of JAs during the F2. Yeah, it was work, but I looked
forward to receiving their cards and I know that they enjoyed receiving mine.
QSLing has always had a cost. Nowadays, it would cost me a lot to send cards
to everyone that I work and pay for it out of my own pocket. That's why I
require an s.a.s.e. from those domestic hams who want my card. But, I don't
have a problem doing that. I figure if you want to apply for major awards
like VUCC and FFMA, and need my card, you can send me an s.a.s.e.
I don't necessarily think that using LotW is all that efficient. I do not
computer log except in contests. The only reason I do it in contests is
because contest sponsors want electronic submissions, and since I would have
to transcribe my hand-written logs into electronic form after the fact, I
choose to computer log to save work. But, I would rather log via pencil and
paper during contests.
Personally, I'm disappointed that the ARRL has chosen to create this LotW
thing. It is aimed at ruining one of the classic enjoyments of ham radio.
73,
Paul, K7CW
--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Tim Marek <K7XC@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
From: Tim Marek <K7XC@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
To: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>, mlolmsted@xxxx.xxxx "Amsat-Bb@xxxxx.
Org" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, "'VHF REFLECTOR'" <vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 11:36 AM
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 23:24:45 -0000
From: "Tim Marek" <K7XC@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
To: "Paul Kiesel" <k7cw@xxxxx.xxx>, "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>,
<mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>, "Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>,
"'VHF REFLECTOR'" <vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <F9E45573AF334A4192CF8C8A75285777@xxxxyear between HF and VHF contesting (not to mention a healthy 6M Es
addiction) QSLing has always been a heavy burden that I dont do well.
Traditionally... all QSL's recieved go in a box and when its full I sit down
and in a few days empty out the box. The box is not even looked at during 6M
Es season or during the time period between CQ WW DX SSB and the ARRL 10M
Contest.
Some people have been quite vocal about my "Lack of QSLing" which has never
been the case... But i have a deffinant "Delay in QSLing" that at time lasts
months and can be hard for some to understand. Live in a rare state,
activate rare grids a few times, and you will understand. I do them ON MY
TERMS or not at all.
With the advent of LOTW support for VUCC and FFMA, I hope the future VHF+
QSL burden drops by at least half, which will be a huge help. Unlike many of
you, my days are filled with painfull headaches (remants from a bad car
crash) which limits my ambitions to mainly the things that must be done to
survive and QSLing is NOT anywhere near the top of that list.
The ultimate purpose for any QSL is to apply for an award of one type or
another... LOTW spares me the Paper QSLIng Burden while still allows me to
keep chasing those awards and thankfully lets me focus what little energy I
have to where it belongs... Finding work, Operating, Station building, and
fighting pain.
LoTW is NOT ruining existing QSLing, its improving it with many more
options....
And my take on the cost associated with using LOTW... It takes time, effort,
energy, manpower, equipment, infrustructure, and more to run a program as
large as LOTW... The fact we only pay to use the service when we elect to
use QSO credits for awards make perfect sense to me.... I know hams are
notoriously cheap but this is one case I think we are getting what we pay
for...
73s and GL de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm... sk
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Kiesel
To: John Geiger ; mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx ; Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org ; 'VHF
REFLECTOR' ; Tim Marek
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
Tim,
I'm not a LotW doubter. I'm a LotW rejecter.
I've been in ham radio for 52 years and have always loved QSLing. I
like to QSL. I look at every card I receive and look forward to receiving
cards for the QSOs I make.
There have been times when the QSLiing chores were intense, like
after working hundreds of JAs during the F2. Yeah, it was work, but I looked
forward to receiving their cards and I know that they enjoyed receiving mine.
QSLing has always had a cost.. Nowadays, it would cost me a lot to
send cards to everyone that I work and pay for it out of my own pocket.
That's why I require an s.a.s.e. from those domestic hams who want my card.
But, I don't have a problem doing that. I firds 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:xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
To: amsat-bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <C0236C2D-2D4B-4C7C-BE4F-AE116ACBD230@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Spark vs CW
AM vs SSB
Tubes vs Solid State
Homebrew vs Appliance Operator
FCC Office vs VECs
Code vs No-Code
EME CW vs WSJT
QSL Cards vs LoTW
Time marches on...
73 de Sebastian, W4AS
> Personally, I'm disappointed that the ARRL has chosen to create this LotW
thing. It is aimed at ruining one of the classic enjoyments of ham radio.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:03:03 -0500
From: "Mark L. Hammond" <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: help with pcsat32 - predictions wrong -e
verything else is correct
To: zach hillerson <qstick333@xxxxx.xxx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <ze331f00E56cfur05e33QN@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Zach,
Couple quick things to check:
1--make sure you're using the same TLE file for both WinAOS and the regular
part of SatPC32
2--make sure you go into Setup/Observer and get your lat/long, time zone,
etc. correct
I suspect it's one of those...
73!
Mark N8MH
At 05:07 PM 1/24/2011 -0800, zach hillerson wrote:
>I recently downloaded pcsat32 and find it pretty amazing. I have verified
that the keps are current and the time and coordinates are all correct. The
program also shows all of the sats that I track in the proper place. When i
click the countdown, these times are correct as well. However, when i try
to get a prediction through WinAOS, the times are off by approx. 15 minutes
and the coordinates for the pass are wrong. I am comparing the satpc32
results to both amsat and satscape.
>
>Any ideas what might be causing this? I'd love to find a solution!
>
>Thanks,
>
>Zach
>KJ4ZVV
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 21:16:32 -0500
From: "Michael J. Wolthuis" <wolthui3@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] VUCC - n3fjp - what am I doing wrong?
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4D3E3280.3090709@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
I am still learning LoTW. I uploaded my whole log from ACLog by n3fjp.
I downloaded LoTW into it and it shows 60 confirmed QSOs on LoTW.
Yet, for my VUCC award it only says 29 confirmed.
I removed all the /p, /h, /#, /m etc's from the callsigns and tried
again. I got 1 additional confirmed.
That leaves 30 that my log program says LoTW has confirmed, but that are
not showing up for VUCC.
Any ideas?
mike
kb8zgl
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:18:06 -0800
From: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
To: "Sebastian" <w4as@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "amsat-bb" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <74D08B01B8FD4E41943B7EC210DBD536@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Very good observation and analogy. Please add:
Mechanical Filters vs. DSP
Analog display vs. Digital Display
Paper logs vs. Electronic logs
Paper duping (contest) vs. Computer duping (contest)
73,
Jeff WB3JFS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sebastian" <w4as@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "amsat-bb" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:55 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
> Spark vs CW
> AM vs SSB
> Tubes vs Solid State
> Homebrew vs Appliance Operator
> FCC Office vs VECs
> Code vs No-Code
> EME CW vs WSJT
> QSL Cards vs LoTW
>
> Time marches on...
>
> 73 de Sebastian, W4AS
>
>
>> Personally, I'm disappointed that the ARRL has chosen to create this LotW
>> thing. It is aimed at ruining one of the classic enjoyments of ham radio.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 pray, January 24, 2011 6:03 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: help with pcsat32 - predictions wrong -e verything
else is correct
> Hi Zach,
>
> Couple quick things to check:
>
> 1--make sure you're using the same TLE file for both WinAOS and the
> regular part of SatPC32
>
> 2--make sure you go into Setup/Observer and get your lat/long, time zone,
> etc. correct
>
>
> I suspect it's one of those...
>
> 73!
>
> Mark N8MH
>
> At 05:07 PM 1/24/2011 -0800, zach hillerson wrote:
>>I recently downloaded pcsat32 and find it pretty amazing. I have verified
>>that the keps are current and the time and coordinates are all correct.
>>The program also shows all of the sats that I track in the proper place.
>>When i click the countdown, these times are correct as well. However,
>>when i try to get a prediction through WinAOS, the times are off by
>>approx. 15 minutes and the coordinates for the pass are wrong. I am
>>comparing the satpc32 results to both amsat and satscape.
>>
>>Any ideas what might be causing this? I'd love to find a solution!
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Zach
>>KJ4ZVV
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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 02:24:20 -0000
From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: reply from arrl on new vucc fees
To: "Bruce" <kk5do@xxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <D22BE633F2354F229FA7B9C4250CE32A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=original
The application fee didn't really go down, it also went up, except for VUCCs
on 2.3ghz and above. The application fee used to be $12, and that included
how many QSLs you sent to get the VUCC. Now if I want to get a brand new
VUCC on 6m using LOTW, it is $7 for the intial fee, plus $16.00 for the QSL
fee, so it is $23, as opposed to the previous $12, so it has doubled in
price.
73s John AA5JG
---- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce" <kk5do@xxxx.xxx>
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 12:25 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] reply from arrl on new vucc fees
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 11
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:42:29 -0800 (PST)
From: zach hillerson <qstick333@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: help with pcsat32 - predictions wrong -e
verything else is correct
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx "Mark L. Hammond" <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <712476.54668.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Hi mark -
Thanks for the reply.? The lat/long etc... are definitely correct - I have
triple checked that.? I am not certain what a TLE file is.? If you would let
me know, I'll check asap.
Thank,
Zach
--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Mark L. Hammond <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
From: Mark L. Hammond <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] help with pcsat32 - predictions wrong -e verything
else is correct
To: "zach hillerson" <qstick333@xxxxx.xxx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 9:03 PM
Hi Zach,
Couple quick things to check:
1--make sure you're using the same TLE file for both WinAOS and the regular
part of SatPC32
2--make sure you go into Setup/Observer and get your lat/long, time zone,
etc. correct
I suspect it's one of those...
73!
Mark N8MH
At 05:07 PM 1/24/2011 -0800, zach hillerson wrote:
>I recently downloaded pcsat32 and find it pretty amazing.? I have verified
that the keps are current and the time and coordinates are all correct.? The
program also shows all of the sats that I track in the proper place.? When i
click the countdown, these times are correct as well.? However, when i try
to get a prediction through WinAOS, the times are off by approx. 15 minutes
and the coordinates for the pass are wrong.? I am comparing the satpc32
results to both amsat and satscape.?
>
>Any ideas what might be causing this?? I'd love to find a solution!
>
>Thanks,
>
>Zach
>KJ4ZVV
>
>
>
>? ? ?
>_______________________________________________
>Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
>Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
>Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:06:57 -0600
From: Bob Herrell <aj5c@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: reply from arrl on new vucc fees
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4D3E3E51.3040006@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
From what I read from Bill Moore's post, the ARRL has got their last
penny out of me. Charging per QSO is absurd, especially if you have
already had your cards checked by a ARRL Card Checker.
_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_
I find that totally unacceptable. Yes, I know awards are getting
expensive, but I think the ARRL is getting a bit GREEDY.
I think I will continue working for the AMSAT Awards and forget about
the rest. I agree, AMSAT needs to have an AMSAT WAS and AMSAT VUCC
Award. My ARRL Satellite VUCC came with the word "Satellite" typed on
the certificate. Whatever happened to the term "OSCAR WAS" or "OSCAR VUCC"?
Sorry to rant, but I am getting feed up with the antics of the ARRL. And
yes, I am a member. It's time to let your ARRL Leadership know your
feelings.
73,
Bob Herrell AJ5C
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 50
***************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
