| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 08.02.14 15:03l 840 Lines 32551 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB947
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V9 47
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<DB0ANF<CX2SA
Sent: 140208/1401Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SA #:3266 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB947
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Listening on USB when operating CW (Clayton Coleman)
2. Re: Listening on USB when operating CW (Ng, Peter)
3. Re: Listening on USB when operating CW (Clayton Coleman)
4. Re: Listening on USB when operating CW (Greg D)
5. Re: Listening on USB when operating CW (Kevin M)
6. Re: Listening on USB when operating CW (Kevin M)
7. 150 cubesats to provide global WIFI multicasting (Michael Chen)
8. Re: SO-50 sat//Arctic/n6spp (Eric T-N6SPP)
9. Re: 150 cubesats to provide global WIFI multicasting (M5AKA)
10. Re: 150 cubesats to provide global WIFI multicasting
(Robert Bruninga)
11. Re: 150 cubesats to provide global WIFI multicasting (Andre)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 14:04:42 -0600
From: Clayton Coleman <kayakfishtx@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "Ng, Peter" <Peter.Ng@xxxxx.xx>
Cc: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Listening on USB when operating CW
Message-ID:
<CAPovOweHe6k2AKQQZSkkrBvvSYmJRc+Z7+0Ez6AkCteyM059rg@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Peter,
That is correct and what I have attempted to describe. A station not
adjusting properly for Doppler shift will appear to "move" across the
passband into stations who are making corrections. (voice or CW)
There are several categories for correction, as I see it by order of
occurrence...(and there may be more)
1 - People who use "full" Doppler correction via software, adjusting
both TX and RX to stay on the satellite's frequency.
2 - People who use "half" Doppler correction by tuning the higher of
two frequencies. This is common for people who are portable or want
the simplest method of staying on another station. In the mode, you
will move slightly. I do this often in the field. It's not perfect.
3 - People who use "TX only" correction. I see this often and I
believe it's an incorrect practice to always tune TX because sometimes
that means on mode J you'll likely move across QSO's in progress.
4 - Probably the least common I observe, people who use "full" Doppler
correction manually. I believe it is a little more difficult to do
this on fast moving LEO's, especially on CW.
My original email was trying to discover whether or not listening on
USB while transmitting on CW might make it easier for "CW drifters" to
know they are part of a problem. Occasionally when this problem
occurs with USB voice, the perpetrating stations are not able to hear
well enough to know they are causing a problem.
73
Clayton
W5PFG
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Ng, Peter <Peter.Ng@xxxxx.xx> wrote:
> Yes, the frequency in use by the CW station that is not adjusting for
doppler will appear to be moving for stations that are adjusting for
doppler....right?
>
> Peter ve7ngp
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of John Becker
> Sent: February 7, 2014 09:27
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Listening on USB when operating CW
>
>
> On 2/7/2014 11:18 AM, Ng, Peter wrote:
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't automatic doppler corrections
dynamically change your frequency to compensate for doppler? Would this
mean anyone engaging in doppler correction are actually drifting into a
stable frequency?
>>
> by "stable" do you mean a freq already being used?
>
> John, W0JAB
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 13:09:05 -0800
From: "Ng, Peter" <Peter.Ng@xxxxx.xx>
To: "'Clayton Coleman'" <kayakfishtx@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Listening on USB when operating CW
Message-ID:
<44D6D682B38A5D4FAA2DBDE4AFD3B87D01CE7132151E@xxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xxxxxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thanks Clayton, that's good to know....
73 Peter ve7ngp
-----Original Message-----
Peter,
That is correct and what I have attempted to describe. A station not
adjusting properly for Doppler shift will appear to "move" across the
passband into stations who are making corrections. (voice or CW)
There are several categories for correction, as I see it by order of
occurrence...(and there may be more)
1 - People who use "full" Doppler correction via software, adjusting both TX
and RX to stay on the satellite's frequency.
2 - People who use "half" Doppler correction by tuning the higher of two
frequencies. This is common for people who are portable or want the
simplest method of staying on another station. In the mode, you will move
slightly. I do this often in the field. It's not perfect.
3 - People who use "TX only" correction. I see this often and I believe
it's an incorrect practice to always tune TX because sometimes that means on
mode J you'll likely move across QSO's in progress.
4 - Probably the least common I observe, people who use "full" Doppler
correction manually. I believe it is a little more difficult to do this on
fast moving LEO's, especially on CW.
My original email was trying to discover whether or not listening on USB
while transmitting on CW might make it easier for "CW drifters" to know they
are part of a problem. Occasionally when this problem occurs with USB
voice, the perpetrating stations are not able to hear well enough to know
they are causing a problem.
73
Clayton
W5PFG
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:38:58 -0600
From: Clayton Coleman <kayakfishtx@xxxxx.xxx>
To: tim@xxxx.xxx
Cc: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Listening on USB when operating CW
Message-ID:
<CAPovOwdQMUOuSxcRA=Qzsr7yjvYh78BQv4Fo13+PNwmoXa+cDQ@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi Tim,
I completely agree that different methods of Doppler shift correction
yield slightly different results. The "one true rule" is a good
source for guidance however some don't follow it -- even remotely. I
do apologize if my generalization rubbed you the wrong way.
Since your direct email indicated to me you adjust your transmit
frequency on AO-7 mode B, that would indicate you are following a good
practice of correction. Likely meaning you are NOT one of the
stations who drift during their entire sequence of calling CQ for five
minutes..... Not everyone plays nice in the schoolyard. I've been
known to screw up and probably am not immune from it in the future.
I still wonder if the offenders listened on USB would they realize
they've come onto a frequency being used by two or more stations
engaged in a voice QSO?
73
Clayton
W5PFG
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:45 PM, <tim@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
> I'm hoping this post makes it to the AMSAT-BB, although I have sent Mr.
> Coleman a longer response directly.
>
> I have to take issue with this statement, Mr. Coleman, which begins your
> second sentence in response to Mr. Ng:
>
> "A station not adjusting properly for Doppler shift...."
>
> Computer-control stations and manual-control stations are adjusting for
> Doppler differently. I have done - and will continue to do - both. In my
> opinion, neither is incorrect; they simply differ from each other.
>
> 73 and God Bless,
> Tim - N3TL
> Evansville, Ind. - EM68
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Listening on USB when operating CW
> From: Clayton Coleman <kayakfishtx@xxxxx.xxx>
> Date: Fri, February 07, 2014 2:04 pm
> To: "Ng, Peter" <Peter.Ng@xxxxx.xx>
> Cc: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
>
> Peter,
>
> That is correct and what I have attempted to describe. A station not
> adjusting properly for Doppler shift will appear to "move" across the
> passband into stations who are making corrections. (voice or CW)
>
> There are several categories for correction, as I see it by order of
> occurrence...(and there may be more)
>
> 1 - People who use "full" Doppler correction via software, adjusting
> both TX and RX to stay on the satellite's frequency.
>
> 2 - People who use "half" Doppler correction by tuning the higher of
> two frequencies. This is common for people who are portable or want
> the simplest method of staying on another station. In the mode, you
> will move slightly. I do this often in the field. It's not perfect.
>
> 3 - People who use "TX only" correction. I see this often and I
> believe it's an incorrect practice to always tune TX because sometimes
> that means on mode J you'll likely move across QSO's in progress.
>
> 4 - Probably the least common I observe, people who use "full" Doppler
> correction manually. I believe it is a little more difficult to do
> this on fast moving LEO's, especially on CW.
>
> My original email was trying to discover whether or not listening on
> USB while transmitting on CW might make it easier for "CW drifters" to
> know they are part of a problem. Occasionally when this problem
> occurs with USB voice, the perpetrating stations are not able to hear
> well enough to know they are causing a problem.
>
> 73
> Clayton
> W5PFG
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Ng, Peter <Peter.Ng@xxxxx.xx> wrote:
>> Yes, the frequency in use by the CW station that is not adjusting for
>> doppler will appear to be moving for stations that are adjusting for
>> doppler....right?
>>
>> Peter ve7ngp
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
>> Behalf Of John Becker
>> Sent: February 7, 2014 09:27
>> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Listening on USB when operating CW
>>
>>
>> On 2/7/2014 11:18 AM, Ng, Peter wrote:
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't automatic doppler corrections
>>> dynamically change your frequency to compensate for doppler? Would this
mean
>>> anyone engaging in doppler correction are actually drifting into a stable
>>> frequency?
>>>
>> by "stable" do you mean a freq already being used?
>>
>> John, W0JAB
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 4
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:25:15 -0800
From: Greg D <ko6th.greg@xxxxx.xxx>
To: Clayton Coleman <kayakfishtx@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Listening on USB when operating CW
Message-ID: <52F5B1AB.3030705@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
I think Patrick's comment about needing to use USB when operating CW is
the key one. I also, for the very few times I have attempted CW on
satellites, needed to use USB on the downlink so I could keep my return
signal audible. CW in both directions, even with computer control, is
more frustrating than it's worth, and our satellites aren't so weak as
to need the narrowest of bandwidths to pull the signal out of the noise.
I do agree that USB would definitely help with hearing what's going on
around you, and I expect a nice dongle-based (waterfall) receiver would
be even better.
Greg KO6TH
Clayton Coleman wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> I completely agree that different methods of Doppler shift correction
> yield slightly different results. The "one true rule" is a good
> source for guidance however some don't follow it -- even remotely. I
> do apologize if my generalization rubbed you the wrong way.
>
> Since your direct email indicated to me you adjust your transmit
> frequency on AO-7 mode B, that would indicate you are following a good
> practice of correction. Likely meaning you are NOT one of the
> stations who drift during their entire sequence of calling CQ for five
> minutes..... Not everyone plays nice in the schoolyard. I've been
> known to screw up and probably am not immune from it in the future.
>
> I still wonder if the offenders listened on USB would they realize
> they've come onto a frequency being used by two or more stations
> engaged in a voice QSO?
>
> 73
> Clayton
> W5PFG
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:45 PM, <tim@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
>> I'm hoping this post makes it to the AMSAT-BB, although I have sent Mr.
>> Coleman a longer response directly.
>>
>> I have to take issue with this statement, Mr. Coleman, which begins your
>> second sentence in response to Mr. Ng:
>>
>> "A station not adjusting properly for Doppler shift...."
>>
>> Computer-control stations and manual-control stations are adjusting for
>> Doppler differently. I have done - and will continue to do - both. In my
>> opinion, neither is incorrect; they simply differ from each other.
>>
>> 73 and God Bless,
>> Tim - N3TL
>> Evansville, Ind. - EM68
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Listening on USB when operating CW
>> From: Clayton Coleman <kayakfishtx@xxxxx.xxx>
>> Date: Fri, February 07, 2014 2:04 pm
>> To: "Ng, Peter" <Peter.Ng@xxxxx.xx>
>> Cc: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> That is correct and what I have attempted to describe. A station not
>> adjusting properly for Doppler shift will appear to "move" across the
>> passband into stations who are making corrections. (voice or CW)
>>
>> There are several categories for correction, as I see it by order of
>> occurrence...(and there may be more)
>>
>> 1 - People who use "full" Doppler correction via software, adjusting
>> both TX and RX to stay on the satellite's frequency.
>>
>> 2 - People who use "half" Doppler correction by tuning the higher of
>> two frequencies. This is common for people who are portable or want
>> the simplest method of staying on another station. In the mode, you
>> will move slightly. I do this often in the field. It's not perfect.
>>
>> 3 - People who use "TX only" correction. I see this often and I
>> believe it's an incorrect practice to always tune TX because sometimes
>> that means on mode J you'll likely move across QSO's in progress.
>>
>> 4 - Probably the least common I observe, people who use "full" Doppler
>> correction manually. I believe it is a little more difficult to do
>> this on fast moving LEO's, especially on CW.
>>
>> My original email was trying to discover whether or not listening on
>> USB while transmitting on CW might make it easier for "CW drifters" to
>> know they are part of a problem. Occasionally when this problem
>> occurs with USB voice, the perpetrating stations are not able to hear
>> well enough to know they are causing a problem.
>>
>> 73
>> Clayton
>> W5PFG
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Ng, Peter <Peter.Ng@xxxxx.xx> wrote:
>>> Yes, the frequency in use by the CW station that is not adjusting for
>>> doppler will appear to be moving for stations that are adjusting for
>>> doppler....right?
>>>
>>> Peter ve7ngp
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
>>> Behalf Of John Becker
>>> Sent: February 7, 2014 09:27
>>> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Listening on USB when operating CW
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/7/2014 11:18 AM, Ng, Peter wrote:
>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't automatic doppler corrections
>>>> dynamically change your frequency to compensate for doppler? Would this
mean
>>>> anyone engaging in doppler correction are actually drifting into a stable
>>>> frequency?
>>>>
>>> by "stable" do you mean a freq already being used?
>>>
>>> John, W0JAB
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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: 5
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 20:52:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Kevin M <n4ufo@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxxx <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Listening on USB when operating CW
Message-ID:
<1391835162.43232.YahooMailNeo@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Many times I have been engaged in a QSO only to have someone CQ'ing on
> CW drift across my existing QSO. Anyone who operates satellites has
> probably had this happen to them many times. Sometimes myself or
> others in QSO may try to tell the CW operator "Hello - QSO in
> progress" but it is apparent they are not hearing us.
>
> My question is, does it make sense for people using CW on the
> satellites to have their receiver set to USB? Do some operators do
> this?
At first I was a little confused by the question... CW receive on almost any
rig I have ever used IS USB receive (as opposed to LSB), just a different
dial setting, perhaps with a slightly narrower bandwidth. Then I realized
you are asking because of the passband inverting... Since CW is neither LSB
or USB, just a carrier, then yes, the norm is to listen for CW with the down
link set to CW or USB depending on preference.
But to address the issue of who is passing over who... is it not also
possible from the prospective of the CW op that it is the SSB QSOs that are
passing over them causing QRM? I've tried about four times now to write an
explanation of how one used to operate, but the bottom line is, if a station
is running with manual doppler correction and sending CW, my experience is
he doesn't adjust the transmit VFO while sending... the receiving station
adjusts the receive VFO while copying and then on the 'over' as he starts to
send adjusts his transmit to match where he heard the other station last in
the downlink. (It's also my experience that manual tuning SSB stations did
the exact same thing.) So compared to doppler correction and possibly the
one true rule, the manual tuning stations drifted... BUT, please understand
that part of my confusion in remembering is that I mostly worked mode K,
which was a different animal; you never adjusted uplink due to being
on an HF band... you might drift into a terrestrial QSO. I did work a
little mode A for a while and we sometimes had mode KA active.
But, it was never a problem that I could tell because the lower half of the
passband was CW and the upper half was SSB and usually they were equally
occupied. Nowadays SSB far outnumbers CW. (I would work more CW if more
stations were on... I prefer it; guess that's a catch 22 thing now, huh.) I
am merely suggesting that a CW op is more likely to be an 'old school op'
and more likely to use 'manual correction'... in other words, more likely to
'tune the old way'.? I may be way off base here, but it's my honest
estimation/recollection. However, if I am right, then your characterization
of the CW drifting across the SSB QSO as opposed to the SSB stations
drifting across a CW QSO (which happened to me many times last summer) is
perspective biased. It boils down to what is considered a 'stable frequency'
as another poster said... relative to ground reception or passband edges.
It is a very old discussion in ham radio... AM versus SSB was one of the
earliest issues of group norms versus emerging technology. Meaning, the
evolving technology began to force a change in accepted norms as the
technology was adopted. And the points of view were equally biased... 'SSB
does not have good sound quality'... 'AM takes up too much bandwidth'. But
people still operate AM today. Room is still made for both and they can
co-exist. However, I must admit it is a quandary when the practice in
question involves shifting frequencies and how to do it. I'm merely saying,
for you the CW station is the offender and for a "seasoned manual tuning op"
the fancy computer doppler guys are the offenders. The question is whether
to argue or how to co exist?
But to address what I think you were actually asking... As a CW op I can
tell you that you will hear a CW signal sweep by with greater "ease" because
the intelligence is communicated by simple on/off keying and can therefore
be heard and copied over a greater time period. But from the CW ops point of
view, sweeping SSB is charlie brown's teacher sounds changing pitch and the
period in which the speech is intelligible is a fleeting amount of time...
In other words what the ear catches is, "Wub-wub-wub-in
QSO-squeak-squeak-squeak", where as you hear the beeping all the way
through. Because like most any male we still draw on the genetically passed
down ability to narrow our focus to only that prey which we seek to the
ignorance of all else. =^D
73 and hope to see you back on the birds soon...
Kevin, N4UFO
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 21:00:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Kevin M <n4ufo@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Listening on USB when operating CW
Message-ID:
<1391835648.10269.YahooMailNeo@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Computer-control stations and manual-control stations are adjusting for
> Doppler differently. I have done - and will continue to do - both. In my
> opinion, neither is incorrect; they simply differ from each other.
This was posted during the assemblage of my long winded reply. I think it
gets at the same thing I was beating around the bush at. I'm glad to know
when I am eventually able to get back on the linear birds (yagis, preamps,
cables and rotor in the closet... conduit for burying piled up outside) I
will be able to find someone to work without getting my rig hooked up to a
PC. (It will be enough to get the rotor hooked up to one!) I just hope I can
remember which dial to turn when... anyone hearing me screw the pooch,
please send instructions promptly! X^D
73 all,
Kevin, N4UFO
proud to be a full fledged Gridiot!
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:46:04 +0800
From: Michael Chen <michael.bd5rv@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] 150 cubesats to provide global WIFI multicasting
Message-ID: <7249BAF0-C120-42F2-A4ED-A69D54A67358@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312
Maybe my knowledge is out dated, or is this another fiction?
https://www.outernet.is/
Guys responsible for frequency coordination will freak out for such project.
:)
???? iPhone
Michael Chen, BD5RV
AMSAT-CHINA
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:41:54 -0900
From: Eric T-N6SPP <n6spp@xxxxx.xxx>
To: AL4S_Rich_ALT <riotqontrol@xxxxx.xxx>, K5TDN/KL7TN_Tyler N
<tyler.nicholas@xxx.xxx>, Joseph P_KL3JY <pepephelps21@xxxxx.xxx>,
Mark Sabel <mark.sabel@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: KL4E_Craig_eaglervr <ruthann.bledsoe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
KL7XJ_Dale_amsat <kl7xj@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SO-50 sat//Arctic/n6spp
Message-ID: <18CD8C6E-7EB3-42D7-8248-8C4A5118BAE4@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Its a go for 1849AK local time tonite, thnx guys
73 n6spp
Bq40si76
~via iP5
> On Feb 6, 2014, at 19:51, Eric T-N6SPP <n6spp@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> Hi guys(+bcc list here too)-Portable with
> Ft-530 and anli800 tele whip from grid- BQ40SI76
>
> Will try for the following passes:
> (All AK local time)
>
> 2/7 friday 1849-1900 ,good w.usa/kl7
>
> 2/7 friiday 2027-2037, AK only pass?
>
> 2/8 saturday 1916-1926
> 2/9 sunday 1803-1815
> (All times are within 2min accuracy)
>
> Work schedule and wx permitting, I will be on these passes.. There is a
chance that I will move to another work qth in a few days (new grid?!)about
40miles west of here).
>
> Hope to wk you
>
> 73 Eric n6spp
> <image.png>
>
>
> ~via iP5
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 13:23:00 +0000 (GMT)
From: M5AKA <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
To: Michael Chen <michael.bd5rv@xxxxx.xxx>, "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx
<amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: 150 cubesats to provide global WIFI
multicasting
Message-ID:
<1391865780.78851.YahooMailNeo@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hi Michael,
It'll be a weak lower-bit rate 802.11 signal since a 1U CubeSat could only
provide an RF output of around 0.4 watts at 2400 MHz but it's certainly
feasible.
Signals probably won't be receivable in urban areas due the strength of
other WiFi signals but my understanding is the system is aimed for areas of
the world where WiFi isn't available.
Syed Karim project lead of Outernet says: "The signal on the ground will be
fairly weak, in order to not interfere with local networks. At this time,
we're shooting for receive sensitivity of about -90dBm"
Of course that's slightly disingenuous - it's not a weak signal because they
don't wont to interfere with local networks, it's a weak signal because
that's the best they can do, there is no-way they can generate a strong
signal.
If they could go for a 3U CubeSat they could use higher power (1W) and have
a fold out 2400 MHz dish antenna such as that on Aeneas
http://amsat-uk.org/.../amateur-radio-cubesats-to-launch.../
73 Trevor M5AKA
On Saturday, 8 February 2014, 10:55, Michael Chen <michael.bd5rv@xxxxx.xxx>
wrote:
Maybe my knowledge is out dated, or is this another fiction?
https://www.outernet.is/
Guys responsible for frequency coordination will freak out for such project.
:)
???? iPhone
Michael Chen, BD5RV
AMSAT-CHINA
_______________________________________________
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: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 08:24:18 -0500
From: Robert Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Chen <michael.bd5rv@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: 150 cubesats to provide global WIFI
multicasting
Message-ID:
<CALdCfNKNYGe4CR3mDRP4-mkiwX+=NmJZyuBNTS6wKt0iHQb+TA@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312
Already Ham Radio has the technology, bandwidth, and evreything needed to
implement distribution of over 70 megabytes of Ham Radio data to every
mobile and handheld operator every day. That's a lot of content.
And the frequencies exist, and the sites exist. THink about it. Every
single VOICE repeater is sitting there with an INPUT channel that NOONE is
listenitng to. Therefore, that repeater can stream at 9600 baud this 50
megabytes of ham radio data all day long using existing radios, existing
packet and existing TNC's from that repeater site on its input.
Every second, it drops the stream for 100ms to listen to see if any VOICE
user wants to use the repeater. If no carrier is there, then the stream
continues. If a voice user has keyed up, then the repeater acts normally,
bringing up its voice transmitter for the duration of the voice contact.
When the repeater evntually drops, it goes back to streaming the megabytes
of ham data.
Any ham wanting to collect this content simply puts his 96000 baud radio
listing to that repeaer INPUT to join the net! An AP runs together
building a buffer of that 70 megabytes of ham radio content per day, which
is then instantly accessible at any time with is browser.
Again, we have the sites, the atnennas, the freqs and the radios.
Just a thought.
Bob, WB4APR
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Michael Chen <michael.bd5rv@xxxxx.xxx>wrote:
> Maybe my knowledge is out dated, or is this another fiction?
>
> https://www.outernet.is/
>
> Guys responsible for frequency coordination will freak out for such
> project. :)
>
> ???? iPhone
>
> Michael Chen, BD5RV
> AMSAT-CHINA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 11
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 14:59:19 +0100
From: Andre <sats@xxxxxx.xxxxx.xx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: 150 cubesats to provide global WIFI
multicasting
Message-ID: <52F63837.3030501@xxxxxx.xxxxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312
On 08-02-14 14:24, Robert Bruninga wrote:
> Already Ham Radio has the technology, bandwidth, and evreything needed to
> implement distribution of over 70 megabytes of Ham Radio data to every
> mobile and handheld operator every day. That's a lot of content.
>
> And the frequencies exist, and the sites exist. THink about it. Every
> single VOICE repeater is sitting there with an INPUT channel that NOONE is
> listenitng to. Therefore, that repeater can stream at 9600 baud this 50
> megabytes of ham radio data all day long using existing radios, existing
> packet and existing TNC's from that repeater site on its input.
>
> Every second, it drops the stream for 100ms to listen to see if any VOICE
> user wants to use the repeater. If no carrier is there, then the stream
> continues. If a voice user has keyed up, then the repeater acts normally,
> bringing up its voice transmitter for the duration of the voice contact.
> When the repeater evntually drops, it goes back to streaming the megabytes
> of ham data.
>
> Any ham wanting to collect this content simply puts his 96000 baud radio
> listing to that repeaer INPUT to join the net! An AP runs together
> building a buffer of that 70 megabytes of ham radio content per day, which
> is then instantly accessible at any time with is browser.
>
> Again, we have the sites, the atnennas, the freqs and the radios.
>
> Just a thought.
> Bob, WB4APR
>
>
Nice idea but won't work because in a lot of areas the geochraphical
spacing between sites is to close and the 9600 baud signal will cause
other repeaters to open even when used with ctcss because of the nature
of a 9k6 signal.
It might work on duplex packet sites but in that case you might just as
well stream the data on the output.
with 1k2 2k4 or maybe 4k8 it might work but even then the question comes
up, why not stream on the output and only transmit ctcss when there is
voice trafic, that would be simpler to implement on all repeater sites
and not just the ones that use 2 transievers.
And to get back on topic of this list, that would also work on cubesats.
73 de Andre PE1RDW
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 9, Issue 47
***************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
