| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 26.01.11 02:37l 950 Lines 36367 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB653
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V6 53
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<DK0WUE<7M3TJZ<CX2SA
Sent: 110126/0033Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:47653 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB653
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Arissat bpsk1000 software? (Gould Smith)
2. LOTW & VUCC Discussion (John Papay)
3. Posting of e:mail (Merle Olmsted)
4. Re: LOTW & VUCC Discussion (John Geiger)
5. Re: LOTW & VUCC Discussion (Jeff Yanko)
6. nano sail (jerry keeton)
7. ARRL VUCC (wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxxx
8. Re: VUCC - n3fjp - what am I doing wrong? (Joe)
9. Re: reply from arrl on new vucc fees (Ted)
10. Re: APRS via Satellite (Bob Bruninga)
11. Re: LOTW & VUCC Discussion (John Papay)
12. Re: LOTW & VUCC Discussion (John Geiger)
13. Satellite Imagery (Clint Bradford)
14. Re: ARISSAT-1 (Andrew Rich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:59:56 -0500
From: "Gould Smith" <gouldsmi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arissat bpsk1000 software?
To: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <C252D6E5060944BF9787225D53B2FA5E@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Hello Jeff and BB,
The BPSK-1000 downlink is transmitted in SSB mode. I sounds like a
"shusssch", higher pitch than the 400 bps growl. It is difficult to tune by
ear. So the CW signal was moved close to it so the CW signal could used as a
tuning signal.
Plug the audio from an SSB receiver into the computer soundcard MIC/LineIn
socket. The PC//Mac software display contains a dotted line that you use to
tune your receiver until the CW signal bump lines up with the dotted line
and the software will decode the BPSK-1000 signal as well as the CW.
The BPSK data is composed of 5 packets.
TLM
Experiment packet 1 of 5
TLM
Experiment packet 2 of 5
TLM
Experiment packet 3 of 5
TLM
Experiment packet 4 of 5
TLM
Experiment packet 5 of 5
TLM
Experiment packet 1 of 5
...
We will have more about this as the developers get the first version ready
for people to look at, we hope soon.
We will also have an Internet data stream running for people to practice
using the software.
73,
Gould, WA4SXM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
To: "Gould Smith" <gouldsmi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Arissat bpsk1000 software?
> Hi Gould,
>
> Question. I've read the ARISSAT articles in both QST and AMSAT Journal
> and understand the BPSK 1000 beacon. However, what mode will the beacon
> be transmitting in? SSB, FM? Looking forward to your reply.
>
>
> 73,
>
>
> Jeff WB3JFS
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gould Smith" <gouldsmi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: "Vince adams" <vinoul@xxxxxxx.xxx>; <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 8:02 AM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arissat bpsk1000 software?
>
>
>> Hello Vince and BB,
>>
>> Thanks for your interest.
>>
>> We have working software to demodulate and decode the BPSK-1000 signal
>> for
>> both the PC and Mac. We got a live stream of realtime data running over
>> the
>> Internet last weekend.
>> The developers are refining the software and we expect to make this
>> available soon.
>>
>> 73,
>> Gould, WA4SXM
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Vince adams" <vinoul@xxxxxxx.xxx>
>> To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>; "Vince adams" <vinoul@xxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:53 AM
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Arissat bpsk1000 software?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I have been reading about the upcoming Arissat-1 mission and have found
>>> lots of good information. However, I have been unable to find any links
>>> to the bpsk-1000 software that will be used for telemetry. All of the
>>> articles I have read say that the software will be available before the
>>> suit is deployed. But if I read correctly, this is coming up fairly
>>> soon.
>>> Any info would be appreciated.
>>>
>>> 73 Vince N9VN
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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: 2
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:31:36 -0500
From: John Papay <john@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] LOTW & VUCC Discussion
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <206694.90746.qm@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
We now know more about the VUCC fee changes than
we did when the discussion started thanks to comments
by Bill Moore and others. As someone stated, the
sticker shock has everyone upset. If the costs of
the VUCC program justify what is being charged, there's
not much you can do about it unless you find someone in
addition to Yaesu to sponsor the program. The money has
to come from somewhere. As Americans, we are painfully
aware of what happens when you spend more than you take in.
The League should have been adjusting rates over the years.
The Post Office, our government and businesses all do this
gradually to avoid a rebellion. If this had been done, we
wouldn't be having such a big outcry right now.
I think the other problem with how this was done involved
notification. Announcing that effective today, the cost for
VUCC submissions is going up drastically, was not a good
move. Rolling out the costs for LOTW VUCC submissions is
one thing, but including the traditional filing rates as part
of it without publishing an "effective date" ahead of time is
another matter. It wasn't well thought out.
Now that it is done, how do we proceed from here? I think there
are two main issues that can be looked at by the Directors. They
control what happens at the League. My Director has been very
responsive to things that I have brought to him. I hope your
Director is equally as responsive. Just make sure that when
writing to them that you don't rant. State the facts and be
specific as to what you want them to do.
The first thing they should look at is the cost of the VUCC
program. Bill Moore has suggested that they don't even break
even considering everything involved. Ask your Director to get
the numbers and validate the claim. Any evaluation should include
monies derived from the website. Yaesu sponsors LOTW but it is
unclear as to what extent they do. There may be other sources of
funding as well.
As a subset of the cost, ask your Director to find out why hybird
applications are part of the DXCC LOTW program but are not provided
for in the VUCC program. After all, it's the same system. I would
expect that we will always be submitting some cards along with LOTW
matches. Most of the cost of a paper submission is subsidized by the
card checkers. It takes a lot of time to scrutinize a card to find
the Grid. After the initial application, only the Grid numbers are
sent to the ARRL. A typist can enter 4 character grids into a computer
very quickly. Callsigns, date, time, band, etc. are not entered for
VUCC. If you send your cards to the ARRL and a paid employee has to
go through the cards, the cost is significantly higher than if a volunteer
does it. Hybrid applications for a single filing fee should be part of
VUCC as they are now for DXCC.
The ARRL Membership was not given a warning about the fee increases.
Establishing the fees for LOTW VUCC is one thing. Increasing the
fees for paper submissions should have had an effective date into the
future. This would allow those who were on the verge of filing the
opportunity to do so at the current rate. Ask your Director to have
the old paper fees reinstated until say, May 1st. This will give the
applicants and the volunteer card checkers some time to process everything.
If the new fees are found to be reasonable they go into effect after that
date.
I have been licensed for 50 years and prior to getting my license I was
involved with ham radio for more than 10 years. I attended many club
meetings with my older cousin. The topic of dissatisfaction with the
ARRL was always a big deal. The hams talked about it all the time. But
if you think that we would be where we are now with Ham Radio if the
ARRL had not been there representing our interests, you are sadly mistaken.
Radio spectrum is always in demand. You can't make more of it. You can
digitize and process till you are blue in the face but there is never
enough spectrum. Cellphones sound lousy because they don't have enough
bandwidth. But we put up with it because they are portable and there is
no other choice given the number of users. If the ARRL had not been there
for us, we would all be on 80 meters. The League is our voice. If you don't
like what they are doing, contact your Director or run for the position
yourself. Ham Radio is a hobby but there are costs involved. You can choose
what you want to spend. No one is forcing you. But do consider that we need
the ARRL to preserve ham radio into the future. It takes money to run the
organization and we are up against others who have very deep pockets.
Supporting the ARRL makes good sense as does supporting AMSAT.
They are our advocates.
73,
John K8YSE
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:42:00 -0500
From: Merle Olmsted <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Posting of e:mail
To: "Moore, Bill, NC1L (ARRL Awards Branch)" <nc1l@xxxx.xxx>, AMSAT-BB
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <4D3F3598.8070803@xxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Bill,
My sincere apologies for forwarding your response to my e:mail without
your approval. It was posted for the sole purpose of trying to help
explain the cost of the VUCC award.
It was my mistake, please accept my apology.
Merle, AA4QE
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:44:58 -0600
From: John Geiger <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: LOTW & VUCC Discussion
To: John Papay <john@xxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<AANLkTi=CdGUKWpq5PBHxYUzf0S5gmRPvVRA0oxQyhvQm@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Very well thought out post John. I do have another question, though. Why
did VUCC take the rate hit when DXCC probably uses LOTW the most, and is now
very cheap compared to the VUCC. For example, I can make 1 DXCC submission
each year of 120 QSOs for $12. That covers any endorsements I get on my 7
different single band DXCCs, plus any for my Mixed, CW, or RTTY DXCCs. If I
want to submit 120 QSOs for VUCC and get endorsements for my 6m, 2m and
satellite VUCCs that would cost $48, or 4 times as much. It breaks down to
$24 for 120 QSOs at 20 cents each
$7 application fee times 3 for the 3 different VUCCs.
$1 endorsement sticker fee times 3 for the 3 different endorsements.
This is fair?????
It seems that DXCC should be paying for more of the shortfall than VUCC is
since it is using LOTW much more and probably has many more submissions per
year. As you state, if I had a local card checker do my VUCC paperwork (as
I have in the past) the league spends very little time or money on my award.
73s John AA5JG
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:31 PM, John Papay <john@xxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> We now know more about the VUCC fee changes than
> we did when the discussion started thanks to comments
> by Bill Moore and others. As someone stated, the
> sticker shock has everyone upset. If the costs of
> the VUCC program justify what is being charged, there's
> not much you can do about it unless you find someone in
> addition to Yaesu to sponsor the program. The money has
> to come from somewhere. As Americans, we are painfully
> aware of what happens when you spend more than you take in.
>
> The League should have been adjusting rates over the years.
> The Post Office, our government and businesses all do this
> gradually to avoid a rebellion. If this had been done, we
> wouldn't be having such a big outcry right now.
>
> I think the other problem with how this was done involved
> notification. Announcing that effective today, the cost for
> VUCC submissions is going up drastically, was not a good
> move. Rolling out the costs for LOTW VUCC submissions is
> one thing, but including the traditional filing rates as part
> of it without publishing an "effective date" ahead of time is
> another matter. It wasn't well thought out.
>
> Now that it is done, how do we proceed from here? I think there
> are two main issues that can be looked at by the Directors. They
> control what happens at the League. My Director has been very
> responsive to things that I have brought to him. I hope your
> Director is equally as responsive. Just make sure that when
> writing to them that you don't rant. State the facts and be
> specific as to what you want them to do.
>
> The first thing they should look at is the cost of the VUCC
> program. Bill Moore has suggested that they don't even break
> even considering everything involved. Ask your Director to get
> the numbers and validate the claim. Any evaluation should include
> monies derived from the website. Yaesu sponsors LOTW but it is
> unclear as to what extent they do. There may be other sources of
> funding as well.
>
> As a subset of the cost, ask your Director to find out why hybird
> applications are part of the DXCC LOTW program but are not provided
> for in the VUCC program. After all, it's the same system. I would
> expect that we will always be submitting some cards along with LOTW
> matches. Most of the cost of a paper submission is subsidized by the
> card checkers. It takes a lot of time to scrutinize a card to find
> the Grid. After the initial application, only the Grid numbers are
> sent to the ARRL. A typist can enter 4 character grids into a computer
> very quickly. Callsigns, date, time, band, etc. are not entered for
> VUCC. If you send your cards to the ARRL and a paid employee has to
> go through the cards, the cost is significantly higher than if a volunteer
> does it. Hybrid applications for a single filing fee should be part of
> VUCC as they are now for DXCC.
>
> The ARRL Membership was not given a warning about the fee increases.
> Establishing the fees for LOTW VUCC is one thing. Increasing the
> fees for paper submissions should have had an effective date into the
> future. This would allow those who were on the verge of filing the
> opportunity to do so at the current rate. Ask your Director to have
> the old paper fees reinstated until say, May 1st. This will give the
> applicants and the volunteer card checkers some time to process everything.
> If the new fees are found to be reasonable they go into effect after that
> date.
>
> I have been licensed for 50 years and prior to getting my license I was
> involved with ham radio for more than 10 years. I attended many club
> meetings with my older cousin. The topic of dissatisfaction with the
> ARRL was always a big deal. The hams talked about it all the time. But
> if you think that we would be where we are now with Ham Radio if the
> ARRL had not been there representing our interests, you are sadly mistaken.
>
> Radio spectrum is always in demand. You can't make more of it. You can
> digitize and process till you are blue in the face but there is never
> enough spectrum. Cellphones sound lousy because they don't have enough
> bandwidth. But we put up with it because they are portable and there is
> no other choice given the number of users. If the ARRL had not been there
> for us, we would all be on 80 meters. The League is our voice. If you
> don't
> like what they are doing, contact your Director or run for the position
> yourself. Ham Radio is a hobby but there are costs involved. You can
> choose
> what you want to spend. No one is forcing you. But do consider that we
> need
> the ARRL to preserve ham radio into the future. It takes money to run the
> organization and we are up against others who have very deep pockets.
> Supporting the ARRL makes good sense as does supporting AMSAT.
> They are our advocates.
>
> 73,
> John K8YSE
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:15:10 -0800
From: "Jeff Yanko" <wb3jfs@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: LOTW & VUCC Discussion
To: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>, "John Papay" <john@xxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <DB42951D45174E7B824F6A65EBBDD4CA@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
You're absolutely correct John, AA5JG. I did a full electronic LoTW
submission last year for under $25 which included the LoTW QSO credits, yet
yesterday, 1/24/11, I took my VUCC Satellite submission over to my local
card checker and the total was $47.40. I grant you, $12 of that total is
for the award, but we're still looking at $35.40 for fees alone.
Fees should be equal across the board. However one fee is questionable and
that's the QSO fee. What purpose does it serve to tax a QSO to obtain an
award? Yes, a fee is just another way of saying tax. Not letting the
membership know of impending price structure changes was no doubt
underhanded and just plan wrong.
Eventually LoTW will be open to non-ARRL awards. The only two I can see are
the County Hunters and IOTA. If and when this happens, what fees are going
to be imposed to provide such a service to those who want to use it?
73,
Jeff WB3JFS
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "John Papay" <john@xxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 12:44 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: LOTW & VUCC Discussion
> Very well thought out post John. I do have another question, though. Why
> did VUCC take the rate hit when DXCC probably uses LOTW the most, and is
> now
> very cheap compared to the VUCC. For example, I can make 1 DXCC submission
> each year of 120 QSOs for $12. That covers any endorsements I get on my 7
> different single band DXCCs, plus any for my Mixed, CW, or RTTY DXCCs. If
> I
> want to submit 120 QSOs for VUCC and get endorsements for my 6m, 2m and
> satellite VUCCs that would cost $48, or 4 times as much. It breaks down
> to
>
> $24 for 120 QSOs at 20 cents each
> $7 application fee times 3 for the 3 different VUCCs.
> $1 endorsement sticker fee times 3 for the 3 different endorsements.
>
> This is fair?????
>
> It seems that DXCC should be paying for more of the shortfall than VUCC is
> since it is using LOTW much more and probably has many more submissions
> per
> year. As you state, if I had a local card checker do my VUCC paperwork
> (as
> I have in the past) the league spends very little time or money on my
> award.
>
> 73s John AA5JG
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:31 PM, John Papay <john@xxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>> We now know more about the VUCC fee changes than
>> we did when the discussion started thanks to comments
>> by Bill Moore and others. As someone stated, the
>> sticker shock has everyone upset. If the costs of
>> the VUCC program justify what is being charged, there's
>> not much you can do about it unless you find someone in
>> addition to Yaesu to sponsor the program. The money has
>> to come from somewhere. As Americans, we are painfully
>> aware of what happens when you spend more than you take in.
>>
>> The League should have been adjusting rates over the years.
>> The Post Office, our government and businesses all do this
>> gradually to avoid a rebellion. If this had been done, we
>> wouldn't be having such a big outcry right now.
>>
>> I think the other problem with how this was done involved
>> notification. Announcing that effective today, the cost for
>> VUCC submissions is going up drastically, was not a good
>> move. Rolling out the costs for LOTW VUCC submissions is
>> one thing, but including the traditional filing rates as part
>> of it without publishing an "effective date" ahead of time is
>> another matter. It wasn't well thought out.
>>
>> Now that it is done, how do we proceed from here? I think there
>> are two main issues that can be looked at by the Directors. They
>> control what happens at the League. My Director has been very
>> responsive to things that I have brought to him. I hope your
>> Director is equally as responsive. Just make sure that when
>> writing to them that you don't rant. State the facts and be
>> specific as to what you want them to do.
>>
>> The first thing they should look at is the cost of the VUCC
>> program. Bill Moore has suggested that they don't even break
>> even considering everything involved. Ask your Director to get
>> the numbers and validate the claim. Any evaluation should include
>> monies derived from the website. Yaesu sponsors LOTW but it is
>> unclear as to what extent they do. There may be other sources of
>> funding as well.
>>
>> As a subset of the cost, ask your Director to find out why hybird
>> applications are part of the DXCC LOTW program but are not provided
>> for in the VUCC program. After all, it's the same system. I would
>> expect that we will always be submitting some cards along with LOTW
>> matches. Most of the cost of a paper submission is subsidized by the
>> card checkers. It takes a lot of time to scrutinize a card to find
>> the Grid. After the initial application, only the Grid numbers are
>> sent to the ARRL. A typist can enter 4 character grids into a computer
>> very quickly. Callsigns, date, time, band, etc. are not entered for
>> VUCC. If you send your cards to the ARRL and a paid employee has to
>> go through the cards, the cost is significantly higher than if a
>> volunteer
>> does it. Hybrid applications for a single filing fee should be part of
>> VUCC as they are now for DXCC.
>>
>> The ARRL Membership was not given a warning about the fee increases.
>> Establishing the fees for LOTW VUCC is one thing. Increasing the
>> fees for paper submissions should have had an effective date into the
>> future. This would allow those who were on the verge of filing the
>> opportunity to do so at the current rate. Ask your Director to have
>> the old paper fees reinstated until say, May 1st. This will give the
>> applicants and the volunteer card checkers some time to process
>> everything.
>> If the new fees are found to be reasonable they go into effect after that
>> date.
>>
>> I have been licensed for 50 years and prior to getting my license I was
>> involved with ham radio for more than 10 years. I attended many club
>> meetings with my older cousin. The topic of dissatisfaction with the
>> ARRL was always a big deal. The hams talked about it all the time. But
>> if you think that we would be where we are now with Ham Radio if the
>> ARRL had not been there representing our interests, you are sadly
>> mistaken.
>>
>> Radio spectrum is always in demand. You can't make more of it. You can
>> digitize and process till you are blue in the face but there is never
>> enough spectrum. Cellphones sound lousy because they don't have enough
>> bandwidth. But we put up with it because they are portable and there is
>> no other choice given the number of users. If the ARRL had not been
>> there
>> for us, we would all be on 80 meters. The League is our voice. If you
>> don't
>> like what they are doing, contact your Director or run for the position
>> yourself. Ham Radio is a hobby but there are costs involved. You can
>> choose
>> what you want to spend. No one is forcing you. But do consider that we
>> need
>> the ARRL to preserve ham radio into the future. It takes money to run
>> the
>> organization and we are up against others who have very deep pockets.
>> Supporting the ARRL makes good sense as does supporting AMSAT.
>> They are our advocates.
>>
>> 73,
>> John K8YSE
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:42:45 -0600
From: "jerry keeton" <jkboxk@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] nano sail
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <1319073DCF2C4CB99E6D5F8FC22A96F5@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
?Just heard a packet signal on 437.305 - 437.300 . Did not print so don't
know which sat it was .
That was 15 minutes ahead of fast1 but was in the LOS path best I could tell
. Didn't see anyother sat with that downlink anywhere close . Maybe NanoSail
still ticking ?
Jerry WB5LHD
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:49:59 +0000 (UTC)
From: wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] ARRL VUCC
To: AMSAT <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<1579888891.1880327.1295992199166.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xxxx.xx
xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Don't the people who work at arrl hq draw a pay check? Then why do we have
to pay for there services for a piece of paper. How much does a VUCC award
cost and how much does it cost arrl to print the little endorsments ?
WA4HFN Damon
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:52:50 -0500
From: Joe <jbarkley@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC - n3fjp - what am I doing wrong?
To: "Gary \"Joe\" Mayfield" <gary_mayfield@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4D3F4632.9090301@xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
DOn't have to create a difference location under TQSL for each of the
portable callsign grids you operated from. I was under that impression
you had to do that if you were operating from a different grid.
Not sure if that is the problem or not.
joe
KI4TZ
Gary "Joe" Mayfield wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I have no idea of how many other QSOs you have uploaded. You can log
> in to the LOTW web page and look through all of your confirmed QSOs. It
> maybe a fair amount of work, but it will probably let you know what is going
> on.
>
> 73,
> Joe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
> Behalf Of Michael J. Wolthuis
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:17 PM
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Subject: [amsat-bb] VUCC - n3fjp - what am I doing wrong?
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:53:57 -0800
From: "Ted" <k7trkradio@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: reply from arrl on new vucc fees
To: "'Bob Herrell'" <aj5c@xxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <712CBD376EA347FF9A2A5789BAC07638@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Excellent comment, Bob.
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Bob Herrell
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 7:07 PM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: reply from arrl on new vucc fees
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-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 17:08:11 -0500
From: "Bob Bruninga" <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: APRS via Satellite
To: <nachif@xxxxx.xxx.xx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <09fd01cbbcdc$5af0f940$10d2ebc0$@xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 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.
Well, the easiest and best is the ISS. Your normal terrestrial APRS
settings should work just fine.
Just listen on 145.825 during mid-day in the Northern Hemisphere and you
can't miss it. I hear it every day. Of course it is moving earlier about
20 minutes a day, so use your tracking program to give you exact times.
Bob, WB4APR
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:08:27 -0500
From: John Papay <john@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: LOTW & VUCC Discussion
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <940868.509.qm@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
The cost for "credits" for LOTW DXCC filings is:
0-49 $.25/each
50-99 $.225/each
100-249 $.20/each
250-499 $.175/each
500- $.15/each
LOTW for VUCC is $.16/credit no matter how many you submit.
If you submit 100 credits for DXCC, it's $20 for the qso's.
If you submit 100 credits for VUCC, it's $16 for the qso's.
These numbers are for endorsements rather than initial applications.
The debate as to the cost of DXCC vs. VUCC using LOTW is a good
one. The Directors should look at that when they validate the
fee schedule.
73, John K8YSE
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:12:38 -0000
From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: LOTW & VUCC Discussion
To: "John Papay" <john@xxxxxx.xxx>, "Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org"
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <A2BED0514EDB4305B6947D59D11DA8DD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
But that is for LOTW. For paper QSLs it is $12 annual up to 120 QSOs.
For those same 120 QSOs on VUCC it is $24, and that is even if a card
checker checks them and all the ARRL does is enter the data.
73s John AA5JG
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Papay" <john@xxxxxx.xxx>
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:08 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: LOTW & VUCC Discussion
> The cost for "credits" for LOTW DXCC filings is:
> 0-49 $.25/each
> 50-99 $.225/each
> 100-249 $.20/each
> 250-499 $.175/each
> 500- $.15/each
>
> LOTW for VUCC is $.16/credit no matter how many you submit.
>
> If you submit 100 credits for DXCC, it's $20 for the qso's.
> If you submit 100 credits for VUCC, it's $16 for the qso's.
>
> These numbers are for endorsements rather than initial applications.
>
> The debate as to the cost of DXCC vs. VUCC using LOTW is a good
> one. The Directors should look at that when they validate the
> fee schedule.
>
> 73, John K8YSE
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:48:19 -0800
From: Clint Bradford <clintbradford@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Satellite Imagery
To: AMSAT BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: ariss-ops-owner@xxxxx.xxxx ARISS-ops OPS <ariss-ops@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <9FE4DE17-FD25-4009-A644-E9DB9625CD5C@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
President Obama will use the phrase, "this is our generation's Sputnik
moment," during his State of the Union Speech tonight, 9PM EST / 6PM PST.
Clint, K6LCS
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:29:36 +1000
From: "Andrew Rich" <vk4tec@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ARISSAT-1
To: "Gould Smith" <gouldsmi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jcowens1@xxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Amsat Bulletin Board" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <679A1F9FBA164EF0A43AB0B88871790A@xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
What is the power output ?
Suggested ground station spec ?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gould Smith" <gouldsmi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <jcowens1@xxxxxxx.xxx>; "Amsat Bulletin Board" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 3:58 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ARISSAT-1
> Hello John,
>
> There is current information about ARISSat on the front page of the AMSAT
> Web site. We will use the AMSAT Web site as well as weekly ANS bulletins
> to
> release information about ARISSat during the next three weeks.
>
> Launch to the ISS 28 Jan 2011
> EVA to deploy ARISSat on 16 Feb 2011. The transmitter will turn on 15
> minutes after the safety switches are activated. The procedure is to
> activate the safety switches then push the satellite away from the ISS.
>
> 73,
> Gould, WA4SXM
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jcowens1@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: "Amsat Bulletin Board" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 11:39 AM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] ARISSAT-1
>
>
>> What is the projected active date for ARISSAT-1??
>>
>> John Owens - N7TK
>>
>> Celebrating over 50 Years in Ham Radio
>> No. 1 Honor Roll
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 53
***************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
