| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 27.10.11 21:04l 431 Lines 13701 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB6598
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V6 598
Path: IZ3LSV<IK6ZDE<VE3UIL<CX2SA
Sent: 111027/1902Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:34834 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB6598
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Satellite QSO's and LoTW (Stephen E. Belter)
2. Re: Satellite QSO's and LoTW (Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK))
3. Re: Satellite QSO's and LoTW (Jeff Welsh)
4. Re: [Re: Prospero] Commanding Error (Tony Abbey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:20:13 -0400
From: "Stephen E. Belter" <seb@xxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jeff Welsh <jhwelsh@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Satellite QSO's and LoTW
Message-ID: <DB69024E-B92B-4A08-9057-9242D77B472A@xxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
LoTW satellite convention is the uplink band.
LoTW works well for satellite contacts and VUCC. I'm currently seeing about
20% confirmations.
73, Steve N9IP
--
On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:39 AM, "Jeff Welsh" <jhwelsh@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Morning all,
>
> I was curious what the standard was for Logbook of the World (LoTW)
> reporting. Which band do you log your QSO with, Uplink or Downlink?
>
> I've been seeing mix results coming back via LoTW, where HRD Log defaults to
> using the downlink frequency although I've had some QSO's report back using
> the uplink. I do also log the satellite, mode and propagation type.
>
> Thanks,
> --jeff
> N3QO
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:29:12 -0700
From: "Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK)" <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Satellite QSO's and LoTW
Message-ID:
<CAN6TEUfjTQGvqhDnMoEfxa5ehFKzfDxXOrjV6RAuhM4WZNY0bQ@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi Jeff!
> I was curious what the standard was for Logbook of the World (LoTW)
> reporting. Which band do you log your QSO with, Uplink or Downlink?
The standard should be what is shown in N5JB's helpful PDF
for satellite operators using LoTW. It is available from the
ARRL web site:
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/LoTW%20Instructions/N5JB.pdf
The BAND field should be the uplink band. The FREQ field is
not mandatory for LoTW, but it can also be uploaded to show
the uplink frequency you used.
> I've been seeing mix results coming back via LoTW, where HRD Log defaults to
> using the downlink frequency although I've had some QSO's report back using
> the uplink. I do also log the satellite, mode and propagation type.
The PROP_MODE and SAT_NAME fields must be present for a
QSO to be a satellite QSO in LoTW. Make sure the satellite
name matches with the list at the bottom of the LoTW FAQ page:
https://p1k.arrl.org/lotw/faq
Otherwise, LoTW may try to match that up as a non-satellite QSO.
Again, N5JB's document does a great job of explaining things
related to satellite operators using LoTW.
When I made my first uploads to LoTW earlier this year, I only
uploaded the seven fields as listed on the top of page two in
N5JB's PDF. I had several thousand satellite QSOs I wanted
to upload, along with the setup in TQSL for dozens of station
locations and getting all the certificates for my call signs.
Once the initial setup was done, and I had those QSOs in the
system, it has been easy to keep up with the uploads for
subsequent activity. I now include the 3 optional fields (uplink
frequency, downlink band and frequency) in my LoTW uploads
to have a more-complete QSO record - even though those
additional fields have no effect on what becomes a QSL in LoTW.
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:04:08 -0400
From: Jeff Welsh <jhwelsh@xxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Satellite QSO's and LoTW
Message-ID:
<CAGHdFOSk7TTOQEU=tOYLipoWCBdwgN+xJTXkSfQHM2egSd-fVQ@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Thanks for the clarification! Now I need to go correct my logbook.
73
--jeff
N3QO
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK) <
amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Hi Jeff!
>
> > I was curious what the standard was for Logbook of the World (LoTW)
> > reporting. Which band do you log your QSO with, Uplink or Downlink?
>
> The standard should be what is shown in N5JB's helpful PDF
> for satellite operators using LoTW. It is available from the
> ARRL web site:
>
> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/LoTW%20Instructions/N5JB.pdf
>
> The BAND field should be the uplink band. The FREQ field is
> not mandatory for LoTW, but it can also be uploaded to show
> the uplink frequency you used.
>
> > I've been seeing mix results coming back via LoTW, where HRD Log defaults
> to
> > using the downlink frequency although I've had some QSO's report back
> using
> > the uplink. I do also log the satellite, mode and propagation type.
>
> The PROP_MODE and SAT_NAME fields must be present for a
> QSO to be a satellite QSO in LoTW. Make sure the satellite
> name matches with the list at the bottom of the LoTW FAQ page:
>
> https://p1k.arrl.org/lotw/faq
>
> Otherwise, LoTW may try to match that up as a non-satellite QSO.
> Again, N5JB's document does a great job of explaining things
> related to satellite operators using LoTW.
>
> When I made my first uploads to LoTW earlier this year, I only
> uploaded the seven fields as listed on the top of page two in
> N5JB's PDF. I had several thousand satellite QSOs I wanted
> to upload, along with the setup in TQSL for dozens of station
> locations and getting all the certificates for my call signs.
> Once the initial setup was done, and I had those QSOs in the
> system, it has been easy to keep up with the uploads for
> subsequent activity. I now include the 3 optional fields (uplink
> frequency, downlink band and frequency) in my LoTW uploads
> to have a more-complete QSO record - even though those
> additional fields have no effect on what becomes a QSL in LoTW.
>
> 73!
>
>
>
>
>
> Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
> http://www.wd9ewk.net/
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:02:37 +0100
From: Tony Abbey <afa3@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
To: "rjad@xxxx.xxx.xx.xxx <rjad@xxxx.xxx.xx.xx>
Cc: Phil Guttridge <prg@xxxx.xxx.xx.xx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [Re: Prospero] Commanding Error
Message-ID: <2CAB969C-AD20-48E6-AEB7-873120514082@xxxx.xxx.xx.xx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi Roger
Once Graham told me the noise was Orbcomm this morning, I added the TLEs for
their satellites
(http://www.orbcomm.com/Collateral/Documents/English-US/o11292.tle)
to my SDR Radio software satellite definitions. Here's a pass I recorded
from one of them this morning, and you can see that the "chuff-chuff" on the
left hand side has structure which is kept vertical by the doppler
correction. The other crap and pager cross talk etc bends with the doppler
correction. I think that proves the point.
Tony Abbey - Senior Research Fellow (retired)
Space Research Centre
Dept of Physics and Astronomy
University of Leicester
University Road SRC Web page: http://www.src.le.ac.uk
LEICESTER LE1 7RH, United Kingdom
On 27 Oct 2011, at 16:17, Roger Duthie wrote:
> We're hearing these 'chuff-chuff swooshes' too, though at times when our
software is not showing Orbcomm over our horizon. Our TLEs may be slightly
out-of-date, though I think it would be a marginal thing. Can it be
definitely confirmed that these noises are Orbcomm?
>
> - Rr.
>
> Tony Abbey wrote:
>>
>> Nothing heard from Prospero here in Leicester, that pass just finished
(at 14:57Z)
>> Just the Orbcomm swooshes.
>>
>> Tony Abbey - Senior Research Fellow (retired)
>> Space Research Centre
>> Dept of Physics and Astronomy
>> University of Leicester
>> University Road SRC Web page: http://www.src.le.ac.uk
>> LEICESTER LE1 7RH, United Kingdom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27 Oct 2011, at 13:33, Roger Duthie wrote:
>>
>>> Well, we're hearing something like that. Though we hear this a lot, we
also wonder whether we''re seeing an envelope during the Prospero pass times.
>>>
>>> The passes for today (BST) [from Heavens-Above]:
>>> 27 Oct 7.2 15:42:26 10 S 15:49:21 77 E 15:57:21 10 NNE
>>> 27 Oct 8.7 17:28:31 10 WSW 17:34:45 31 WNW 17:41:39 10 N
>>> Also, I've started a Twitter hashtag for anyone using this mode of
communication: #Prospero40 Add this to any Twitter messages you might write
about Prospero or related subjects.
>>>
>>> -Roger
>>>
>>> PE0SAT wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have a spectrogram and a recording of that "chuff chuff" on
>>>> http://www.pe0sat.vgnet.nl/satellite/sat-history/prospero/
>>>>
>>>> Is it the same you guys heard?
>>>>
>>>> 73 Jan PE0SAT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, October 27, 2011 10:04, g.shirville@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Tony,
>>>>>
>>>>> The chuff chuff noises are from space...they are a sort of beacon
carried
>>>>> on
>>>>> every Orbcomm satellite. They are 125msec long pulses of 57.6kb data and
>>>>> have a bandwidth of around 50kHz. They are quite distinctive when you
only
>>>>> hear one at a time but sometimes one can hear two or more signals at the
>>>>> same time and that sort of changes the sound:)
>>>>>
>>>>> 73
>>>>>
>>>>> Graham
>>>>> G3VZV
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Tony Abbey
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 8:56 PM
>>>>> To: rjad@xxxx.xxx.xx.xx
>>>>> Cc: Phil Guttridge ; amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>>>>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [Re: Prospero] Commanding Error
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Roger
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing other than the chuff- chuff on the 1600 pass. And as you said,
its
>>>>> also there with Prospero over the horizon. I 'm not using a beam
presently
>>>>> -
>>>>> using a 360deg parasitic Lindenblad for circular polarisation, but it is
>>>>> susceptible to all the high power pager stuff nearby. Its just strange
>>>>> that
>>>>> there are elements shifting in frequency in the chuff chuff like a
signal
>>>>> from a real satellite.
>>>>> Have just come back from a Rosat re-entry celebration!
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony Abbey - Senior Research Fellow (retired)
>>>>> Space Research Centre
>>>>> Dept of Physics and Astronomy
>>>>> University of Leicester
>>>>> University Road SRC Web page: http://www.src.le.ac.uk
>>>>> LEICESTER LE1 7RH, United Kingdom
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26 Oct 2011, at 16:17, Roger Duthie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We heard something intriguing after about 14:43:40 UT as the tracking
>>>>>> said
>>>>>> the satellite was on it's way off to the north pole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 'chuff-chuff' description reminds me of a sound we seem to hear
>>>>>> quite
>>>>>> a lot. Quite often it coincides with a pass, though I think we hear
the
>>>>>> same (or very similar) during times when Prospero is over the horizon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are going to try the next pass at ~16:00UT if you want to listen in
>>>>>> again. Our new ploy is to wait for the last most opportune moment to
>>>>>> command, as the power _may_ be at it highest (longest charging of
>>>>>> batteries, potentially). So, we'll do short commanding at above 30o
el,
>>>>>> and listen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rr.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony Abbey wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Roger
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I could hear some "chuff-chuff" noises on the last pass and they
show a
>>>>>>> related doppler shift (although I am not correcting sufficiently) as
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> can see in the attached plot. Maybe its some other noise but you never
>>>>>>> know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 26 Oct 2011, at 13:39, Roger Duthie wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Commanding went well, from as far as we could make out. We're not
>>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>> if we're getting anything back, however.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We'll be doing this pass today, hopefully:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 26 Oct 7.3 15:31:43 10 S 15:38:26 60 E 15:46:11 10 NNE [Times in
BST =
>>>>>>>> UTC + 1]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Roger
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ---
>>> Roger J A Duthie
>>> PhD Candidate
>>> Plasma Group
>>> Department of Space & Climate Physics
>>> UCL, London
>>>
>>> w: +44(0)1483 204 100 ext 2299
>>> m: +44(0)7938 55 70 44
>>>
>>
>
> --
> ---
> Roger J A Duthie
> PhD Candidate
> Plasma Group
> Department of Space & Climate Physics
> UCL, London
>
> w: +44(0)1483 204 100 ext 2299
> m: +44(0)7938 55 70 44
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 598
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
