| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 22.02.11 00:43l 251 Lines 8563 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB6112
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V6 112
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<ON0AR<HS1LMV<CX2SA
Sent: 110221/2241Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:54189 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB6112
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior.
(Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL)
2. Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior. (John Geiger)
3. Re: LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts? (Marvin Tamez)
4. Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior.
(Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:56:58 -0700
From: "Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" <vlfiscus@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior.
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20110221112620.00be4dd0@xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 10:45 AM 2/21/2011 -0500, "Mark L. Hammond" <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>Okay, this one perplexes me--what in the world can the "powers to be at
>amsat" do to fix this?
Turn Off all the FM birds. ;-)
No, we told them a dozen times already. Stop building FM crap, and do a
HEO or at least as minimums, LEO's with linear transponders and
Vuala! Problem solved. But no, they are committed to Fox now, which mean
more whining.
Anyone remember this degree of whining back when there was a HEO?
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:07:49 -0600
From: John Geiger <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior.
To: Rocky Jones <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, tjschuessler@xxxxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<AANLkTi=+ap6T3kbJHzzcuObTcH=8=QQ3m0FJxBLL+Jiw@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
This is exactly how I look at them-they are like a DX piluep. That sort of
behavior occurs all of the time on HF, and you learn how to more effectively
get through. There is very little way to change how operating is going to
take place on a single channel FM satellite. That is what makes it
challenging. If you got through all of the time, the challenge aspect would
be gone, as would some of the excitement and fun.
73s John AA5JG
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Rocky Jones <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>
> A while back someone likened the FM birds to a DX situation and thats
> probably not all that bad.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:30:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Marvin Tamez <k5mlt@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts?
To: Bill Dzurilla <billdz.geo@xxxxx.xxx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <523038.69747.qm@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Patrick, I mentioned to Bill earlier, off group, that three of
my?confirmed?QSL's are blank?in the "VUCC" column. What could have caused
that?
Leaving out Propagation=SAT, maybe? Also on the 10th of this month?I started
using an ELK-L5 and it has made a noticable difference! Hearing at?much lower
elevations and making QSO's at and below 10*.? Thanks for all your help and
advice.
73,
Marvin
K5MLT
________________________________
From: Bill Dzurilla <billdz.geo@xxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 11:19:29 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts?
Thanks, Patrick,, I have already sent an email to LOTW.? If the other station
failed to include Propagation Mode or Satellite Name, there should be no match
at all.? There is no basis for me to be credited with a 144mhz or 432 mhz
grid.
I spent a lot of time going through my log before uploading it, as LOTW
demands
perfection.? The slightest error (e.g., writing vo-52 instead of VO-52, AO51
instead of AO-51) and the entry is rejected.
73, Bill NZ5N
>
> Most likely, the other station didn't include one or both
> of the fields
> used to mark a QSO as a satellite QSO (Propagation Mode,
> Satellite
> Name).? I've seen this on a handful of QSOs I've
> uploaded in the past
> few weeks.
>
> > Anyone know how this is handled?
>
> Assuming your log has all the necessary fields for a
> satellite QSO (all
> of the QSLs I've gotten from you are showing as satellite
> QSOs, so I
> don't think your logs are missing anything), there is only
> one way to fix
> this - the other station has to upload the QSO record(s)
> again, this time
> making sure those additional ADIF fields are in their
> log.? As long as the
> other QSO details like date, time, your call, etc. are the
> same, the new
> upload replaces what was originally uploaded.
>
> If the other station's log has the satellite-related
> fields, then an e-mail to
> lotw-help @ arrl.org is necessary.? There could be
> errors in how ARRL's
> database queries run to match up QSO records and make
> QSLs.? ARRL
> will not fix problems with other stations' log uploads, and
> everything has
> to be in there correctly in order to use the resulting QSLs
> toward awards.
? ? ?
_______________________________________________
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: 4
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:38:28 -0700
From: "Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK)" <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior.
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<AANLkTikFrco3JJAVbAQmx+m44QUDiGfba+ZLTJpmEA6S@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
John,
Nice to see you on here.
> There's nothing AMSAT can do about lids. ?Lids are lids and they
> are everywhere on the hambands, not just satellite. ?I would suspect
> that the ones you're complaining about don't read this list, or talk to
> any
> other hams. ? We do all this writing, but the people who need to read it
> don't.
You are 100% correct. There are lids on HF, lids on terrestrial
repeaters, and some on satellites. Unfortunately, this is not a
new thing.
Some suggest shutting down satellites when the passes become
unruly. Why? Hams work through that sort of thing on HF when
trying to work stations all the time, and especially when trying to
work a DXpedition or stations in unusual places in contests. It
isn't always easy, but we get through it. Shutting down satellites
would not be a good way to fix the problem, and would probably
cause more problems in the long run than that would "fix".
Another suggestion that has come up today is to have a net-control
station on FM passes. That would tie up so much of the limited time
we have on those passes with the housekeeping tasks of a net.
Very few QSOs would ever be made. Especially on AO-27 and its
7-minute passes. This sounds like a nice idea in theory, but isn't so
nice in practice. How would a net-control handle check-ins and
allowing those stations to make calls, when the footprint is always
moving? It would take a lot more work than a net-control station
does on HF or a terrestrial repeater.
>From what I hear when I work passes, these problems only seem to
appear on AO-51. AO-27, despite its 7-minute passes over the
Northern Hemisphere, has large numbers of stations - but is not
impossible
> Doing a demo on a SSB/CW bird would be much nicer. ?It's much more
> civilized most of the time.
It is more civilized, but sometimes it is a lonely experience if nobody
else is around to make a QSO. By the way, I missed you over the
weekend when I was on from the Yuma AZ hamfest. ;-)
I've been working SSB for demonstrations at hamfests for the past 2+
years. It's fun, and - thanks to those who read my posts here on the
-BB, or just tune the passbands of those satellites looking for activity -
seems to make a great impression on the crowds. Last weekend in
Yuma, I worked two FO-29 passes, on Friday and Saturday afternoons.
Friday's pass had 5 QSOs with stations from all over the US, and
Saturday's pass had just one QSO (thanks Kerry WC7V!). There
have been some demonstrations where I am talking to myself - not
a good thing when you're trying to make QSOs, but at least it shows
off the concept.
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 112
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
