| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 13.04.11 04:56l 713 Lines 26842 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB6212
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V6 212
Path: IZ3LSV<IV3YXW<HB9TVW<IK2XDE<DB0RES<ON0AR<VE2RXY<VE2PKT<CX2SA
Sent: 110413/0246Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:64703 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB6212
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: satellite average elevation (Bob Bruninga)
2. Re: satellite average elevation (Mark L. Hammond)
3. Re: Cans o' Worms (Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL)
4. Re: ARRISSat Reception 14.45 UTC (Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL)
5. Re: ISS Deception Reports (Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL)
6. ARISSat-1 Same report.. No Signals over EU (Giulio P. AOL)
7. Re: ISS Deception Reports (Dee)
8. Re: satellite average elevation (Edward R. Cole)
9. Re: satellite average elevation (Glen Zook)
10. Re: satellite average elevation (Glen Zook)
11. Re: ISS Deception Reports (KM9U)
12. ARISSat-1 Deactivation (Armando Mercado)
13. No mention of ARISSat in ISS status report (Armando Mercado)
14. last ao-50 pass (Buzcut)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:49:28 -0400
From: "Bob Bruninga" <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: satellite average elevation
To: "'Mark L. Hammond'" <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <012201cbf94a$bba770c0$32f65240$@xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Okay---but the 12-15 degree argument _assumes
> that the station has a view "to the horizon"
> that isn't tainted by trees, hills, and houses.
> In those circumstances, 30 deg might well be
> the better choice!... So, the 12-15 degree
> "optimum" assumes a clear view to the horizon...right??
Yes. Correct. But if one cannot see nor hear below 20 degrees, such a
station is missing out on almost 70% of all the times a LEO satellite is
above the horizon anyway. In that case, then there is little justification
for even having a beam, motors, tracking, and timing and a PC at all.
At 30 degrees and above, signals from LEO's are 5 dB or more stronger than
at the horizon, and a simple 1/4 wave whip over a ground plane (with a
pre-amp) will just about hear everything with no moving parts or tracking.
If you want even more gain, make the whip 3/4 wavelength long (still 19.5"
at UHF) and get nearly 7 dB antenna gain in a cone above 30 degrees. That
plus the 5 dB closeness gives you at least 10 dB gain over what a vertical
will hear of a satellite on the horizon.
But you are correct. If you really want to have a beam and you really want
to have motors and tracking, and PC's and updated elements, etc, then I DO
AGREE, tilting up to have the main lobe just over the tops of the visible
horizon is an improvement.
TO be clear. I am not arguing against a specific angle (say 30) just
because its 30, but I am arguing against how the choice of that angle is
presented. If it is presented in the absence of an appreciation of the
significant 4 to 1 difference in signal power over the angles from 30 down
to 0.. or does not reference the 1 to 4 times increase in VISIBILITY
DURATION over that same drop in angle, then I think it is worth pointing
out.
I can see now that I should add a plot of visibility time versus angle as
well as the path-gain vs angle on the web page:
http://aprs.org/rotator1.html By the way, that is an old page, and you can
ignore the "how to build" a TV rotor controlled station, since no softare
currently drives it except mine (obsolete). But the information on the
geometery of LEO passes is what most satellite newbee's overlook.
Bob, WB4APR
Mark N8MH
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Bob Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
>> As I said, in the "goode olde dayes" we used
>> 30 degree up tilt and it worked well...
>> Lessening the up tilt may increase the gain
>> for the lower angle passes but will also decrease
>> the gain on the higher angle passes. ?So, it is a
>> "trade off" no matter what you do!
>
> Sorry to sound like I am quibbling... but that last sentence implies the
> idea of an equal "trade off". ?But the tradeoff is not equal at all and
may
> be missing the point here.
>
> A LEO satellite pass does not need gain at "higher angles" because the
> satellite is by definition 2 or 3 times closer to the ground station (+6
to
> +9dB stronger). ?But one does need the gain at lower angles where the
> satellite is much further away.
>
> An up-tilt of 30 degrees is throwing away excess gain where it is not
needed
> (high angles) at the expense of low angles where every single dB -is-
> needed. ?So there is no real tradeoff... ?A lower angle (about 15 degrees)
> is more-or-less optimum for LEO's with fixed tilt and modest gain beams.
>
> To actually quantify the exact best angle (which will depend on the actual
> beam's own beamwidth), it is simply to up-tilt the antenna no more than
the
> angle at which the gain on the horizon LOSES say less than 1 dB. ?Note,
this
> is not half the published "antenna beamwidth" which is usually a "3 dB"
> beamwidth. ?It is much less than that, less than half the 1 dB beam width.
> You can measure this by setting the beam no higher than the upangle that
> loses less than 1 dB to a signal on the horizon....
>
> Something like that...
> Bob, WB4APR
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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, 12 Apr 2011 15:54:45 -0400
From: "Mark L. Hammond" <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: satellite average elevation
To: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <BANLkTinY4McrQ10oZpL6=LCdbAsE20P7fw@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Bob Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
>> Okay---but the 12-15 degree argument _assumes
>> that the station has a view "to the horizon"
>> that isn't tainted by trees, hills, and houses.
>> In those circumstances, 30 deg might well be
>> the better choice!... So, the 12-15 degree
>> "optimum" assumes a clear view to the horizon...right??
>
> Yes. ?Correct. ?But if one cannot see nor hear below 20 degrees, such a
> station is missing out on almost 70% of all the times a LEO satellite is
> above the horizon anyway. ?In that case, then there is little justification
> for even having a beam, motors, tracking, and timing and a PC at all.
On the contrary---all the more reason to get more gain on the uplink
and the downlink with directional arrays! It helps with the leaves
and trees,and you can work through quite a bit of material--trust me!
Mark N8MH
>
> At 30 degrees and above, signals from LEO's are 5 dB or more stronger than
> at the horizon, and a simple 1/4 wave whip over a ground plane (with a
> pre-amp) will just about hear everything with no moving parts or tracking.
> If you want even more gain, make the whip 3/4 wavelength long (still 19.5"
> at UHF) and get nearly 7 dB antenna gain in a cone above 30 degrees. ?That
> plus the 5 dB closeness gives you at least 10 dB gain over what a vertical
> will hear of a satellite on the horizon.
>
> But you are correct. ?If you really want to have a beam and you really want
> to have motors and tracking, and PC's and updated elements, etc, then I DO
> AGREE, tilting up to have the main lobe just over the tops of the visible
> horizon is an improvement.
>
> TO be clear. ?I am not arguing against a specific angle (say 30) just
> because its 30, but I am arguing against how the choice of that angle is
> presented. ?If it is presented in the absence of an appreciation of the
> significant 4 to 1 difference in signal power over the angles from 30 down
> to 0.. ?or does not reference the 1 to 4 times increase in VISIBILITY
> DURATION over that same drop in angle, then I think it is worth pointing
> out.
>
> I can see now that I should add a plot of visibility time versus angle as
> well as the path-gain vs angle on the web page:
> http://aprs.org/rotator1.html ?By the way, that is an old page, and you can
> ignore the "how to build" a TV rotor controlled station, since no softare
> currently drives it except mine (obsolete). ?But the information on the
> geometery of LEO passes is what most satellite newbee's overlook.
>
>
> Bob, WB4APR
>
>
> Mark N8MH
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Bob Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
>>> As I said, in the "goode olde dayes" we used
>>> 30 degree up tilt and it worked well...
>>> Lessening the up tilt may increase the gain
>>> for the lower angle passes but will also decrease
>>> the gain on the higher angle passes. ?So, it is a
>>> "trade off" no matter what you do!
>>
>> Sorry to sound like I am quibbling... but that last sentence implies the
>> idea of an equal "trade off". ?But the tradeoff is not equal at all and
> may
>> be missing the point here.
>>
>> A LEO satellite pass does not need gain at "higher angles" because the
>> satellite is by definition 2 or 3 times closer to the ground station (+6
> to
>> +9dB stronger). ?But one does need the gain at lower angles where the
>> satellite is much further away.
>>
>> An up-tilt of 30 degrees is throwing away excess gain where it is not
> needed
>> (high angles) at the expense of low angles where every single dB -is-
>> needed. ?So there is no real tradeoff... ?A lower angle (about 15 degrees)
>> is more-or-less optimum for LEO's with fixed tilt and modest gain beams.
>>
>> To actually quantify the exact best angle (which will depend on the actual
>> beam's own beamwidth), it is simply to up-tilt the antenna no more than
> the
>> angle at which the gain on the horizon LOSES say less than 1 dB. ?Note,
> this
>> is not half the published "antenna beamwidth" which is usually a "3 dB"
>> beamwidth. ?It is much less than that, less than half the 1 dB beam width.
>> You can measure this by setting the beam no higher than the upangle that
>> loses less than 1 dB to a signal on the horizon....
>>
>> Something like that...
>> Bob, WB4APR
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
--
Mark L. Hammond [N8MH]
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:33:55 -0600
From: "Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" <vlfiscus@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Cans o' Worms
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20110411102127.00be67b0@xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 05:23 PM 4/10/2011 -0700, Clint Bradford <clintbrad4d@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> >> ... Boy did I open up a can of worms ...
>
>Yes, you did.
>
>I propose that we all NOT initiate ANY threads with the following titles
>until AFTER the ARISSat-1 activation this week ...
>
>-Elk versus Arrow
>-ITU vs. MY Phonetics
>-Circular polarization on the FM birds
>-When will we have a ham Geo-synschronous bird over North America?
>-What is the difference between UTC and GMT?
>-I live in Kansas, and there's no one on the FM birds to talk to
>-I live on the West Coast, and it is hard to get in with all the traffic
>
>Clint
ROFL,
Clint, you forgot one:
The 'Which is better debate: A fiberglass or metal crossboom.'
KB7ADL
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:38:54 -0600
From: "Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" <vlfiscus@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ARRISSat Reception 14.45 UTC
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20110411123402.00c0b8d8@xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 10:49 PM 4/11/2011 +0530, vu3tyg@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>Nothing heard on the 16.20 UTC pass, watch the live feed from ISS from
>http://spaceflight.nasa.gov looks like the crew is working on addressing the
>issue, the last comment I heard is recharging the batteries ( Please excuse
>if I am wrong J ).
>
>
>
>73's
>
>Nitin [VU3TYG]
That's what I was thinking because someone should have heard it by
now. Maybe in two months pass the time since it should launched, even
though it was off there might have been a small drain on the batteries and
now they're in a discharge state.
KB7ADL
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:07:26 -0600
From: "Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" <vlfiscus@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ISS Deception Reports
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20110412100003.00be6c80@xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 07:26 AM 4/12/2011 -0700, you wrote:
> >> ... I am curious why we nee that a signal was not heard?
>
>Because some of us are damned excited with this project ... It is also
>good to let others know that their setups are not necessarily improper
>- that those who "think" they know what they are doing are not hearing
>it right now.
>
>And besides - how many "50th anniversaries of man orbiting the Earth"
>can one celebrate in one's lifetime?
>
>Clint, K6LCS
What would be really neat is to be anxiously awaiting the signals from a new
HEO.
KB7ADL
Now this would be an accomplishment. Hi! Hi!
Next ISS Pass here in NJ is 01:55 UTC - Listening too!
73,
Dee, NB2F
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:30:11 -0800
From: "Edward R. Cole" <kl7uw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: satellite average elevation
To: "Bob Bruninga" <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>, "'Mark L. Hammond'"
<marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <201104122030.p3CKUBSE070451@xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Bob etal,
Your discussion has prompted me to "throw up" a yagi (2m7) quickly in
anticipation of ARISSat-1. Viewing ISS from Alaska is much
simpler: Just point due south on the horizon as ISS rises no more
than 15 deg and usually half that angle. Living near 61 deg N
latitude makes the ISS 51 deg maximum sub-satellite longitude very
low in the southern sky and at maximum range.
I even have a preamp to use. Hoping to capture telemetry.
73, Ed - KL7uW
At 11:49 AM 4/12/2011, Bob Bruninga wrote:
> > Okay---but the 12-15 degree argument _assumes
> > that the station has a view "to the horizon"
> > that isn't tainted by trees, hills, and houses.
> > In those circumstances, 30 deg might well be
> > the better choice!... So, the 12-15 degree
> > "optimum" assumes a clear view to the horizon...right??
>
>Yes. Correct. But if one cannot see nor hear below 20 degrees, such a
>station is missing out on almost 70% of all the times a LEO satellite is
>above the horizon anyway. In that case, then there is little justification
>for even having a beam, motors, tracking, and timing and a PC at all.
>
>At 30 degrees and above, signals from LEO's are 5 dB or more stronger than
>at the horizon, and a simple 1/4 wave whip over a ground plane (with a
>pre-amp) will just about hear everything with no moving parts or tracking.
>If you want even more gain, make the whip 3/4 wavelength long (still 19.5"
>at UHF) and get nearly 7 dB antenna gain in a cone above 30 degrees. That
>plus the 5 dB closeness gives you at least 10 dB gain over what a vertical
>will hear of a satellite on the horizon.
>
>But you are correct. If you really want to have a beam and you really want
>to have motors and tracking, and PC's and updated elements, etc, then I DO
>AGREE, tilting up to have the main lobe just over the tops of the visible
>horizon is an improvement.
>
>TO be clear. I am not arguing against a specific angle (say 30) just
>because its 30, but I am arguing against how the choice of that angle is
>presented. If it is presented in the absence of an appreciation of the
>significant 4 to 1 difference in signal power over the angles from 30 down
>to 0.. or does not reference the 1 to 4 times increase in VISIBILITY
>DURATION over that same drop in angle, then I think it is worth pointing
>out.
>
>I can see now that I should add a plot of visibility time versus angle as
>well as the path-gain vs angle on the web page:
>http://aprs.org/rotator1.html By the way, that is an old page, and you can
>ignore the "how to build" a TV rotor controlled station, since no softare
>currently drives it except mine (obsolete). But the information on the
>geometery of LEO passes is what most satellite newbee's overlook.
>
>
>Bob, WB4APR
>
>
>Mark N8MH
>
>On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Bob Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
> >> As I said, in the "goode olde dayes" we used
> >> 30 degree up tilt and it worked well...
> >> Lessening the up tilt may increase the gain
> >> for the lower angle passes but will also decrease
> >> the gain on the higher angle passes. So, it is a
> >> "trade off" no matter what you do!
> >
> > Sorry to sound like I am quibbling... but that last sentence implies the
> > idea of an equal "trade off". But the tradeoff is not equal at all and
>may
> > be missing the point here.
> >
> > A LEO satellite pass does not need gain at "higher angles" because the
> > satellite is by definition 2 or 3 times closer to the ground station (+6
>to
> > +9dB stronger). But one does need the gain at lower angles where the
> > satellite is much further away.
> >
> > An up-tilt of 30 degrees is throwing away excess gain where it is not
>needed
> > (high angles) at the expense of low angles where every single dB -is-
> > needed. So there is no real tradeoff... A lower angle (about 15 degrees)
> > is more-or-less optimum for LEO's with fixed tilt and modest gain beams.
> >
> > To actually quantify the exact best angle (which will depend on the actual
> > beam's own beamwidth), it is simply to up-tilt the antenna no more than
>the
> > angle at which the gain on the horizon LOSES say less than 1 dB. Note,
>this
> > is not half the published "antenna beamwidth" which is usually a "3 dB"
> > beamwidth. It is much less than that, less than half the 1 dB beam width.
> > You can measure this by setting the beam no higher than the upangle that
> > loses less than 1 dB to a signal on the horizon....
> >
> > Something like that...
> > Bob, WB4APR
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45
======================================
BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com
EME: 144-1.4kw, 432-100w, 1296-testing*, 3400-winter?
DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa@xxxxxxx.xxx
======================================
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Glen Zook <gzook@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: satellite average elevation
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx Bob Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <785260.5830.qm@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Again, back in "those dayes" we did not have the luxury of computer
simulation and from trial and error the majority of people found that about
30 degrees above the horizontal worked the best. That is why the "olde
tymers" recommend 30 degrees. It worked very well and we made many contacts
using the LEO satellites.
After a relatively short time (less than a year), I acquired an Alliance TV
rotor and used it as an elevation rotor along with an AR-22 for the azimuth
rotor.
Frankly, even in "those dayes" the antennas often had more than enough gain
to make it into the satellites. In fact, AMSAT was pleading with people to
reduce their transmitting power to keep the linear transponders from
overloading on a single signal which would allow many more people to use the
satellites at the same time.
One could use a computer to determine the vertical pattern of their antenna
and then determine exactly the elevation that is optimum for their antenna.
That angle might be something like 17.2345 degrees, it might be something
like 10.795 degrees, or, depending on the design it could be considerably
greater. There are many variables and determining the optimum angle is
going to be difficult.
Back when AMSAT was formed, and well into its life, people were
experimenting to find what worked and what did not work. Back then, the
majority of people found that about 30 degrees above the horizontal worked
well and that became the defacto standard for a fixed elevation. If
computer simulation now proves otherwise then so be it.
Whether the operator puts his/her beam at 15 degrees elevation, at 30
degrees elevation, or at another elevation, the answer to the original
question remains the same. Yes, using a yagi with a fixed elevation can be
used for satellite communication and, in the va.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: satellite average elevation
To: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>, "Mark L. Hammond"
<marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <697060.83317.qm@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
One thing that I didn't mention is that my house is 1/2 block from the
highest point in the city (less than 8 feet in elevation) and it is
basically "downhill" in all directions. My top antenna, on my main tower,
is 67 feet above ground and is visible from the freeway about a mile away.
Since I have lived in this house longer than anyone else on the street all
have purchased their houses knowing that the antennas are there. Several
neighbors have told me that if I every sell the house I have to leave the
towers! It seems the towers are the landmark by which they tell people how
to find their house!
Glen, K9STH
Website: http://k9sth.com
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:20:05 -0400
From: "KM9U" <arskm9u@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ISS Deception Reports
To: "Dee" <morsesat@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL'"
<vlfiscus@xxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <C101ABA1E1D746C582692AC53882E251@xxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
An HEO would really be neat and we can make it happen! Every time we go to a
satellite related web page (like www.papays.com/sat/general.html) and see
that that little box titled "AMSAST-NA ARISSat-1 and FOX fund", just click
on the "Give button and throw them your loose change. I'm sure little can
mean a lot towards getting a bird in the air!
Chuck, KM9U
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dee" <morsesat@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "'Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL'" <vlfiscus@xxx.xxx>; <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 16:28
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ISS Deception Reports
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
> Behalf Of Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:07 PM
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ISS Deception Reports
>
> At 07:26 AM 4/12/2011 -0700, you wrote:
>> >> ... I am curious why we need 100 reports that a signal was not heard?
>>
>>Because some of us are damned excited with this project ... It is also
>>good to let others know that their setups are not necessarily improper
>>- that those who "think" they know what they are doing are not hearing
>>it right now.
>>
>>And besides - how many "50th anniversaries of man orbiting the Earth"
>>can one celebrate in one's lifetime?
>>
>>Clint, K6LCS
>
>
>
> What would be really neat is to be anxiously awaiting the signals from a
> new
> HEO.
>
> KB7ADL
>
>
> Now this would be an accomplishment. Hi! Hi!
> Next ISS Pass here in NJ is 01:55 UTC - Listening too!
> 73,
> Dee, NB2F
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 12
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:04:35 -0400
From: "Armando Mercado" <am25544@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] ARISSat-1 Deactivation
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <F9D772FF58B94D82AFDF18CF9176F355@xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello,
The ISS timeline for 4/13/2011 calls for the "Deactivation of
Radioskaf hardware and closeout" at 10:30-10:50 UTC.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/535242main_041311_tl.pdf
73, Armando N8IGJ
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:16:57 -0400
From: "Armando Mercado" <am25544@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] No mention of ARISSat in ISS status report
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <EF633FDAAF7A4D21A83F1F1CDD4CC19B@xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello,
No word of ARISSat in the 4/12/2011 ISS status report, but they are
watching an object that will make a close approach Friday.
"Conjunction Advisory: Ballistics experts are tracking a conjunction with
Object 33457 (Chinese CZ-4B Rocket Body) with a TCA (Time of Closest
Approach) on 4/15 (Friday) at 6:31am EDT. This object is an intact rocket
body with good tracking returns. It is classified as a medium concern at
this time."
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/reports/iss_reports/index.html
73, Armando N8IGJ
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:02:43 -0700
From: "Buzcut" <buzcut@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] last ao-50 pass
To: <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <015001cbf96e$1dd18420$59748c60$@xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hey I couldn't get the EL 23 guys call it was cornfuzzling me, if any one
had it please let me know
Dan
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 212
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
