| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 21.11.12 20:13l 1016 Lines 34479 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB7385
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V7 385
Path: IZ3LSV<IW0QNL<VE2PKT<XE1FH<LU6PCK<CX2SA
Sent: 121121/1907Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SA #:710 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB7385
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Allocations in L-band (Greg D)
2. Re: Allocations in L-band (Edward R Cole)
3. Re: Allocations in L-band (Trevor .)
4. Re: Allocations in L-band (Alan)
5. Re: Allocations in L-band (i8cvs)
6. Re: Allocations in L-band (Mike Seguin N1JEZ)
7. Re: Allocations in L-band (Greg Dolkas)
8. Re: Who is using a IC-910 with Maspro Antennas? (Dimitry Borzenko)
9. Re: Who is using a IC-910 with Maspro Antennas? (tosca005@xxx.xxxx
10. Re: Who is using a IC-910 with Maspro Antennas?
(PE0SAT | Amateur Radio)
11. Re: Who is using a IC-910 with Maspro Antennas? (Dimitry Borzenko)
12. Oculus-ASR Microsatellite (Trevor .)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:31:40 -0800
From: Greg D <ko6th.greg@xxxxx.xxx>
To: APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
Message-ID: <50AC592C.4090408@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
I believe it was Oscar-7.
Greg KO6TH
Alan wrote:
> Someone years ago told me that one of the early amateur satellites had a
> mode-L beacon, but because the rules changed, it was never turned on. I
> haven't been able to verify or disprove this story.
>
> Alan
> WA4SCA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
> Behalf Of Trevor .
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 4:10 AM
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
>
> --- On Mon, 19/11/12, Richard Ferryman<g4bbh@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>> Just curious - Can someone enlighten me as to why there is no allocation
>> for satellite downlinks in L-band (at least in the bandplans I have seen).
>> There are uplinks around 1267 to 1269 MHz. Is it due to possibility of
>> interference with commercial/military/aeronautical systems?
> I believe it dates back to a WARC conference in about 1971. Prior to that
> the Amateur Service had I believe been able to use any Amateur Frequencies
> just as they can still do for that other form of Space Communication - Moon
> Bounce (EME).
>
> Wayne Green W2NSD does make references to the loss of satellite frequencies
> a few times in his column in 73 Magazine from that era, see 73 Mag archive
> at http://archive.org/search.php?query=73%20magazine
>
> Although a separate service, the Amateur-satellite Service, was created they
> were only given access a limited sub-set of the Amateur Service frequencies.
> For the UHF and Microwave bands the satellite segments were all remote from
> the terrestrial weak-signal segment meaning separate equipment had to be
> built to work satellites. Back in those days even 435 MHz would have seemed
> "remote" from the 432 MHz weak-signal area due to the use of 28 to 432 MHz
> transvertors that only covered a narrow 2 MHz segment of the band. We share
> 432-438 MHz with commercial SAR satellites but why in the 70's we weren't
> allowed to use the whole of 432-438 I do not know. Maybe no-one thought to
> ask for the whole segment ?
>
> The same with 1260-1270, why it's there I don't know perhaps someone can
> enlighten us. The band 1260-1300 MHz is used for wideband Global Positioning
> transmissions from Galileo, see
> http://www.southgatearc.org/articles/galileo.htm
>
> Do restrictions that were applied to the Amateur-satellite Service 40 years
> ago (but not to Moonbounce) still have any relevance today ? again I don't
> know.
>
> Ideally the Amateur-satellite Service should have access to the weak-signal
> segments of all the UHF and Microwave bands for both Earth-to-Space and
> Space-to-Earth so we would only need to build one set of equipment on each
> band for both terrestrial and satellite working. It would be good if IARU
> were to work towards that objective.
>
> 73 Trevor M5AKA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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, 20 Nov 2012 21:17:51 -0900
From: Edward R Cole <kl7uw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Greg D <ko6th.greg@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
Message-ID: <201211210617.qAL6Hp2K095353@xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
It was AO7 and the freq was 2304 MHz and not 1260. Because the
frequency was set in the weak-signal band with no allocation for
space-com the system was never activated. A huge disappointment to
the members of the SBMS that designed and built it. Politics!
I was a member of the sbms during that time.
Ed - KL7UW, ex K8MWA and ex amsat #3212
At 07:31 PM 11/20/2012, Greg D wrote:
>I believe it was Oscar-7.
>
>Greg KO6TH
>
>
>Alan wrote:
>>Someone years ago told me that one of the early amateur satellites had a
>>mode-L beacon, but because the rules changed, it was never turned on. I
>>haven't been able to verify or disprove this story.
>>
>>Alan
>>WA4SCA
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
>>Behalf Of Trevor .
>>Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 4:10 AM
>>To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>>Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
>>
>>--- On Mon, 19/11/12, Richard Ferryman<g4bbh@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>>>Just curious - Can someone enlighten me as to why there is no allocation
>>>for satellite downlinks in L-band (at least in the bandplans I have seen).
>>>There are uplinks around 1267 to 1269 MHz. Is it due to possibility of
>>>interference with commercial/military/aeronautical systems?
>>I believe it dates back to a WARC conference in about 1971. Prior to that
>>the Amateur Service had I believe been able to use any Amateur Frequencies
>>just as they can still do for that other form of Space Communication - Moon
>>Bounce (EME).
>>
>>Wayne Green W2NSD does make references to the loss of satellite frequencies
>>a few times in his column in 73 Magazine from that era, see 73 Mag archive
>>at http://archive.org/search.php?query=73%20magazine
>>
>>Although a separate service, the Amateur-satellite Service, was created they
>>were only given access a limited sub-set of the Amateur Service frequencies.
>>For the UHF and Microwave bands the satellite segments were all remote from
>>the terrestrial weak-signal segment meaning separate equipment had to be
>>built to work satellites. Back in those days even 435 MHz would have seemed
>>"remote" from the 432 MHz weak-signal area due to the use of 28 to 432 MHz
>>transvertors that only covered a narrow 2 MHz segment of the band. We share
>>432-438 MHz with commercial SAR satellites but why in the 70's we weren't
>>allowed to use the whole of 432-438 I do not know. Maybe no-one thought to
>>ask for the whole segment ?
>>
>>The same with 1260-1270, why it's there I don't know perhaps someone can
>>enlighten us. The band 1260-1300 MHz is used for wideband Global Positioning
>>transmissions from Galileo, see
>>http://www.southgatearc.org/articles/galileo.htm
>>
>>Do restrictions that were applied to the Amateur-satellite Service 40 years
>>ago (but not to Moonbounce) still have any relevance today ? again I don't
>>know.
>>
>>Ideally the Amateur-satellite Service should have access to the weak-signal
>>segments of all the UHF and Microwave bands for both Earth-to-Space and
>>Space-to-Earth so we would only need to build one set of equipment on each
>>band for both terrestrial and satellite working. It would be good if IARU
>>were to work towards that objective.
>>
>>73 Trevor M5AKA
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
>Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:49:07 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Trevor ." <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
To: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, Greg D <ko6th.greg@xxxxx.xxx>,
Edward R Cole <kl7uw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
Message-ID:
<1353498547.91460.YahooMailClassic@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
I had a recollection that it was UOSAT-1 (OSCAR-9) that was planned to have
a 23cm L-Band beacon and so I emailed Cliff G4BGP/G8FDH who has sent me the
following:
--
It had been proposed that a 23cm beacon be carried on board UOSAT. However
there was a legal problem to be overcome. A request was made to the World
Administrative Conference in 1977 (WARC-77), to permit such a beacon to be
operated, from space. Unfortunately the outcome of WARC77 prevented
operation of the 23cm beacon... Consequently it was agreed that a 13cm
beacon should also be considered.
--
73 Trevor M5AKA
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 06:39:37 -0600
From: Alan <wa4sca@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "'Trevor .'" <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>, "'AMSAT-BB'"
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, "'Greg D'" <ko6th.greg@xxxxx.xxx>, "'Edward R
Cole'" <kl7uw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
Message-ID: <7667B962603C4CCFA55828B0C283B816@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
That seems to explain the story. Thanks for the research!
Alan
WA4SCA
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Trevor .
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 5:49 AM
To: AMSAT-BB; Greg D; Edward R Cole
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
I had a recollection that it was UOSAT-1 (OSCAR-9) that was planned to have
a 23cm L-Band beacon and so I emailed Cliff G4BGP/G8FDH who has sent me the
following:
--
It had been proposed that a 23cm beacon be carried on board UOSAT. However
there was a legal problem to be overcome. A request was made to the World
Administrative Conference in 1977 (WARC-77), to permit such a beacon to be
operated, from space. Unfortunately the outcome of WARC77 prevented
operation of the 23cm beacon... Consequently it was agreed that a 13cm
beacon should also be considered.
--
73 Trevor M5AKA
_______________________________________________
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: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:23:14 +0100
From: "i8cvs" <domenico.i8cvs@xxx.xx>
To: "Greg D" <ko6th.greg@xxxxx.xxx>, <APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
Message-ID: <000001cdc7f4$3abb1820$0401a8c0@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Greg, KO6TH
For the history no OSCAR satellite carried on a Mode-L Beacon.
OSCAR-7 carried on a Mode-S beacon on 2304.1 MHz built by the
San Bernardino Microwave Society but it was never officially turned
on because of international treaty constraints (bandplan) so that it
was not receiving the autorization by the FCC
73" de
i8CVS Domenico
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg D" <ko6th.greg@xxxxx.xxx>
To: <APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 5:31 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
> I believe it was Oscar-7.
>
> Greg KO6TH
>
>
> Alan wrote:
> > Someone years ago told me that one of the early amateur satellites had a
> > mode-L beacon, but because the rules changed, it was never turned on. I
> > haven't been able to verify or disprove this story.
> >
> > Alan
> > WA4SCA
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
> > Behalf Of Trevor .
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 4:10 AM
> > To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
> >
> > --- On Mon, 19/11/12, Richard Ferryman<g4bbh@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> >> Just curious - Can someone enlighten me as to why there is no
allocation
> >> for satellite downlinks in L-band (at least in the bandplans I have
seen).
> >> There are uplinks around 1267 to 1269 MHz. Is it due to possibility of
> >> interference with commercial/military/aeronautical systems?
> > I believe it dates back to a WARC conference in about 1971. Prior to
that
> > the Amateur Service had I believe been able to use any Amateur
Frequencies
> > just as they can still do for that other form of Space Communication -
Moon
> > Bounce (EME).
> >
> > Wayne Green W2NSD does make references to the loss of satellite
frequencies
> > a few times in his column in 73 Magazine from that era, see 73 Mag
archive
> > at http://archive.org/search.php?query=73%20magazine
> >
> > Although a separate service, the Amateur-satellite Service, was created
they
> > were only given access a limited sub-set of the Amateur Service
frequencies.
> > For the UHF and Microwave bands the satellite segments were all remote
from
> > the terrestrial weak-signal segment meaning separate equipment had to be
> > built to work satellites. Back in those days even 435 MHz would have
seemed
> > "remote" from the 432 MHz weak-signal area due to the use of 28 to 432
MHz
> > transvertors that only covered a narrow 2 MHz segment of the band. We
share
> > 432-438 MHz with commercial SAR satellites but why in the 70's we
weren't
> > allowed to use the whole of 432-438 I do not know. Maybe no-one thought
to
> > ask for the whole segment ?
> >
> > The same with 1260-1270, why it's there I don't know perhaps someone can
> > enlighten us. The band 1260-1300 MHz is used for wideband Global
Positioning
> > transmissions from Galileo, see
> > http://www.southgatearc.org/articles/galileo.htm
> >
> > Do restrictions that were applied to the Amateur-satellite Service 40
years
> > ago (but not to Moonbounce) still have any relevance today ? again I
don't
> > know.
> >
> > Ideally the Amateur-satellite Service should have access to the
weak-signal
> > segments of all the UHF and Microwave bands for both Earth-to-Space and
> > Space-to-Earth so we would only need to build one set of equipment on
each
> > band for both terrestrial and satellite working. It would be good if
IARU
> > were to work towards that objective.
> >
> > 73 Trevor M5AKA
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:56:05 -0500
From: "Mike Seguin N1JEZ" <n1jez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "i8cvs" <domenico.i8cvs@xxx.xx>, "Greg D" <ko6th.greg@xxxxx.xxx>,
<APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
Message-ID: <392474F16DDE4F56ABA78FFBCF935785@xxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
For those interested in AO-7, here's the FCC 432 uplink waiver and the
denial of the 2304.1 downlink...
http://users.burlingtontelecom.net/~n1jez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.xxx
watch any wrap...
73,
Mike, N1JEZ
AMSAT 29649
AO-7 command op
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
----- Original Message -----
From: "i8cvs" <domenico.i8cvs@xxx.xx>
To: "Greg D" <ko6th.greg@xxxxx.xxx>; <APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:23 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
> Hi Greg, KO6TH
>
> For the history no OSCAR satellite carried on a Mode-L Beacon.
>
> OSCAR-7 carried on a Mode-S beacon on 2304.1 MHz built by the
> San Bernardino Microwave Society but it was never officially turned
> on because of international treaty constraints (bandplan) so that it
> was not receiving the autorization by the FCC
>
> 73" de
>
> i8CVS Domenico
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg D" <ko6th.greg@xxxxx.xxx>
> To: <APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> Cc: "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 5:31 AM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
>
>
>> I believe it was Oscar-7.
>>
>> Greg KO6TH
>>
>>
>> Alan wrote:
>> > Someone years ago told me that one of the early amateur satellites had
>> > a
>> > mode-L beacon, but because the rules changed, it was never turned on.
>> > I
>> > haven't been able to verify or disprove this story.
>> >
>> > Alan
>> > WA4SCA
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
>> > Behalf Of Trevor .
>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 4:10 AM
>> > To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>> > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
>> >
>> > --- On Mon, 19/11/12, Richard Ferryman<g4bbh@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>> >> Just curious - Can someone enlighten me as to why there is no
> allocation
>> >> for satellite downlinks in L-band (at least in the bandplans I have
> seen).
>> >> There are uplinks around 1267 to 1269 MHz. Is it due to possibility of
>> >> interference with commercial/military/aeronautical systems?
>> > I believe it dates back to a WARC conference in about 1971. Prior to
> that
>> > the Amateur Service had I believe been able to use any Amateur
> Frequencies
>> > just as they can still do for that other form of Space Communication -
> Moon
>> > Bounce (EME).
>> >
>> > Wayne Green W2NSD does make references to the loss of satellite
> frequencies
>> > a few times in his column in 73 Magazine from that era, see 73 Mag
> archive
>> > at http://archive.org/search.php?query=73%20magazine
>> >
>> > Although a separate service, the Amateur-satellite Service, was created
> they
>> > were only given access a limited sub-set of the Amateur Service
> frequencies.
>> > For the UHF and Microwave bands the satellite segments were all remote
> from
>> > the terrestrial weak-signal segment meaning separate equipment had to
>> > be
>> > built to work satellites. Back in those days even 435 MHz would have
> seemed
>> > "remote" from the 432 MHz weak-signal area due to the use of 28 to 432
> MHz
>> > transvertors that only covered a narrow 2 MHz segment of the band. We
> share
>> > 432-438 MHz with commercial SAR satellites but why in the 70's we
> weren't
>> > allowed to use the whole of 432-438 I do not know. Maybe no-one thought
> to
>> > ask for the whole segment ?
>> >
>> > The same with 1260-1270, why it's there I don't know perhaps someone
>> > can
>> > enlighten us. The band 1260-1300 MHz is used for wideband Global
> Positioning
>> > transmissions from Galileo, see
>> > http://www.southgatearc.org/articles/galileo.htm
>> >
>> > Do restrictions that were applied to the Amateur-satellite Service 40
> years
>> > ago (but not to Moonbounce) still have any relevance today ? again I
> don't
>> > know.
>> >
>> > Ideally the Amateur-satellite Service should have access to the
> weak-signal
>> > segments of all the UHF and Microwave bands for both Earth-to-Space and
>> > Space-to-Earth so we would only need to build one set of equipment on
> each
>> > band for both terrestrial and satellite working. It would be good if
> IARU
>> > were to work towards that objective.
>> >
>> > 73 Trevor M5AKA
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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-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: 7
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 07:37:30 -0800
From: Greg Dolkas <ko6th.greg@xxxxx.xxx>
To: i8cvs <domenico.i8cvs@xxx.xx>, <APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
Message-ID: <50acf53d.49ee440a.18d7.2237@xx.xxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Right, sorry. The question was mode L but my brain read mode S...
Greg KO6TH
Sent from my trusty HP iPAQ.
-----Original Message-----
From: "i8cvs" <domenico.i8cvs@xxx.xx>
To: "Greg D" <ko6th.greg@xxxxx.xxx>; APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: 11/21/12 6:23 AM
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
Hi Greg, KO6TH
For the history no OSCAR satellite carried on a Mode-L Beacon.
OSCAR-7 carried on a Mode-S beacon on 2304.1 MHz built by the
San Bernardino Microwave Society but it was never officially turned
on because of international treaty constraints (bandplan) so that it
was not receiving the autorization by the FCC
73" de
i8CVS Domenico
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg D" <ko6th.greg@xxxxx.xxx>
To: <APBIDDLE@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 5:31 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
> I believe it was Oscar-7.
>
> Greg KO6TH
>
>
> Alan wrote:
> > Someone years ago told me that one of the early amateur satellites had a
> > mode-L beacon, but because the rules changed, it was never turned on. I
> > haven't been able to verify or disprove this story.
> >
> > Alan
> > WA4SCA
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
> > Behalf Of Trevor .
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 4:10 AM
> > To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
> >
> > --- On Mon, 19/11/12, Richard Ferryman<g4bbh@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> >> Just curious - Can someone enlighten me as to why there is no
allocation
> >> for satellite downlinks in L-band (at least in the bandplans I have
seen).
> >> There are uplinks around 1267 to 1269 MHz. Is it due to possibility of
> >> interference with commercial/military/aeronautical systems?
> > I believe it dates back to a WARC conference in about 1971. Prior to
that
> > the Amateur Service had I believe been able to use any Amateur
Frequencies
> > just as they can still do for that other form of Space Communication -
Moon
> > Bounce (EME).
> >
> > Wayne Green W2NSD does make references to the loss of satellite
frequencies
> > a few times in his column in 73 Magazine from that era, see 73 Mag
archive
> > at http://archive.org/search.php?query=73%20magazine
> >
>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:06:02 +0200
From: "Dimitry Borzenko" <dibor@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "'PE0SAT | Amateur Radio'" <pe0sat@xxxxx.xx>, "'Amsat bb'"
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Who is using a IC-910 with Maspro Antennas?
Message-ID: <6C8672C01845445494451F2958EF3339@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello Jan.
Try "Desense" filter.
More info here - http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/articles/Mode-J/
Regards.
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of PE0SAT | Amateur Radio
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:12 PM
To: Amsat bb
Subject: [amsat-bb] Who is using a IC-910 with Maspro Antennas?
Hi,
Thanks for reading this message. I have exchanged my FT-847 for an
IC-910H and now when I try to
work VO-52 my UHF uplink signal interferes with the VHF downlink. Are
the any people out there that
experience the same with this combination?
I tried with and without pre-amp, RHCP and LHCP but the problems
doesn't go away :(
I do know that there can be problems when working FO-29 and a mode-j
filter can solve this, but I
never experiences this when working VO-52.
73 Jan PE0SAT
--
With regards PE0SAT
Internet web-page http://www.pe0sat.vgnet.nl/
_______________________________________________
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: 21 Nov 2012 10:50:10 -0600
From: tosca005@xxx.xxx
To: "'Amsat bb'" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Who is using a IC-910 with Maspro Antennas?
Message-ID: <Gophermail.2.0.1211211050100.17640@xxxx.xx.xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=UTF-8
Note that Jan is specifically asking about VO-52 (mode UV), *NOT* FO-29
(mode VU). There is a big difference. When the uplink is VHF, the third
harmonic of 145 MHz is 435 MHz so desense is often a problem. I have always
noticed that difficulty with my FT-847 on FO-29 in the absence of external
filtering, but a desense filter (filter out the 435 MHz harmonic from the
145 MHz side of the radio) is very helpful. But on mode UV, the transmitter
is in the 435 MHz band and so interference in the 145 MHz band should be
small. I have always found it extremely easy to operate VO-52 on my FT-847
without any particular extra filtering, unlike FO-29. And it sounds like
Jan likewise was successful in working VO-52 in the past with his (now
eliminated) FT-847.
So, this leads me to believe that Jan's system does have some problem. I am
not familiar with either the IC-910 or the Maspro antennas, so I can't
diagnose further. Separate bandpass filters on the VHF and UHF sides of the
radio can likely help, but there may be more to the problem than meets the
eye. At least it seems so from my state of ignorance about his specific
equipment.
73 de W0JT
John P. Toscano
On Nov 21 2012, Dimitry Borzenko wrote:
>Hello Jan.
>
>Try "Desense" filter.
>More info here - http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/articles/Mode-J/
>
>Regards.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
>Behalf Of PE0SAT | Amateur Radio
>Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:12 PM
>To: Amsat bb
>Subject: [amsat-bb] Who is using a IC-910 with Maspro Antennas?
>
>Hi,
>
>Thanks for reading this message. I have exchanged my FT-847 for an
>IC-910H and now when I try to
>work VO-52 my UHF uplink signal interferes with the VHF downlink. Are
>the any people out there that
>experience the same with this combination?
>
>I tried with and without pre-amp, RHCP and LHCP but the problems
>doesn't go away :(
>
>
>I do know that there can be problems when working FO-29 and a mode-j
>filter can solve this, but I
>never experiences this when working VO-52.
>
>
>73 Jan PE0SAT
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:03:51 +0100
From: PE0SAT | Amateur Radio <pe0sat@xxxxx.xx>
To: Dimitry Borzenko <dibor@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Who is using a IC-910 with Maspro Antennas?
Message-ID: <2c8fe4f05378ebebaa40246dc9d2b1d3@xxxxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Hi Dimitry,
I know of this filter, but these are for working FO-29 when the uplink
is 145 and the downlink 435.
The Harmonics produced by the 145 uplink signal interfere with the 435
downlink. Now I experience the
same with VO-52 but there the uplink 435 and the donwlink 145 ???
So why is the 435 uplink interfering with the 145 downlink ????
Could this be a harmonic problem???
73 Jan PE0SAT
On 21-11-2012 17:06, Dimitry Borzenko wrote:
> Hello Jan.
>
> Try "Desense" filter.
> More info here - http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/articles/Mode-J/
>
> Regards.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx
> On
> Behalf Of PE0SAT | Amateur Radio
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:12 PM
> To: Amsat bb
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Who is using a IC-910 with Maspro Antennas?
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for reading this message. I have exchanged my FT-847 for an
> IC-910H and now when I try to
> work VO-52 my UHF uplink signal interferes with the VHF downlink. Are
> the any people out there that
> experience the same with this combination?
>
> I tried with and without pre-amp, RHCP and LHCP but the problems
> doesn't go away :(
>
>
> I do know that there can be problems when working FO-29 and a mode-j
> filter can solve this, but I
> never experiences this when working VO-52.
>
>
> 73 Jan PE0SAT
--
With regards PE0SAT
Internet web-page http://www.pe0sat.vgnet.nl/
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:27:46 +0200
From: "Dimitry Borzenko" <dibor@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "'Amsat bb'" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Who is using a IC-910 with Maspro Antennas?
Message-ID: <F9F03F595C21436EAFBEE1365D7BCF33@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello Guys.
Sorry I do not read all message.
John right.
I have IC-910H and do not have problem under VO-52 operating.
But I have small VHF UHF antennas and good SWR.
Regards.
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of tosca005@xxx.xxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 6:50 PM
To: 'Amsat bb'
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Who is using a IC-910 with Maspro Antennas?
Note that Jan is specifically asking about VO-52 (mode UV), *NOT* FO-29
(mode VU). There is a big difference. When the uplink is VHF, the third
harmonic of 145 MHz is 435 MHz so desense is often a problem. I have always
noticed that difficulty with my FT-847 on FO-29 in the absence of external
filtering, but a desense filter (filter out the 435 MHz harmonic from the
145 MHz side of the radio) is very helpful. But on mode UV, the transmitter
is in the 435 MHz band and so interference in the 145 MHz band should be
small. I have always found it extremely easy to operate VO-52 on my FT-847
without any particular extra filtering, unlike FO-29. And it sounds like
Jan likewise was successful in working VO-52 in the past with his (now
eliminated) FT-847.
So, this leads me to believe that Jan's system does have some problem. I am
not familiar with either the IC-910 or the Maspro antennas, so I can't
diagnose further. Separate bandpass filters on the VHF and UHF sides of the
radio can likely help, but there may be more to the problem than meets the
eye. At least it seems so from my state of ignorance about his specific
equipment.
73 de W0JT
John P. Toscano
On Nov 21 2012, Dimitry Borzenko wrote:
>Hello Jan.
>
>Try "Desense" filter.
>More info here - http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/articles/Mode-J/
>
>Regards.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
>Behalf Of PE0SAT | Amateur Radio
>Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:12 PM
>To: Amsat bb
>Subject: [amsat-bb] Who is using a IC-910 with Maspro Antennas?
>
>Hi,
>
>Thanks for reading this message. I have exchanged my FT-847 for an
>IC-910H and now when I try to
>work VO-52 my UHF uplink signal interferes with the VHF downlink. Are
>the any people out there that
>experience the same with this combination?
>
>I tried with and without pre-amp, RHCP and LHCP but the problems
>doesn't go away :(
>
>
>I do know that there can be problems when working FO-29 and a mode-j
>filter can solve this, but I
>never experiences this when working VO-52.
>
>
>73 Jan PE0SAT
>
>
_______________________________________________
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: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:04:12 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Trevor ." <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Oculus-ASR Microsatellite
Message-ID:
<1353524652.32950.YahooMailClassic@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Oculus-ASR is a 70 kg satellite that hopes to fly in 2013.
See http://www.uk.amsat.org/?p=11555
73 Trevor M5AKA
AMSAT-UK http://www,amsat-uk.org/
----
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 7, Issue 385
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
