| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 10.02.09 21:50l 894 Lines 33383 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 8138-CX2SA
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V4 68
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<HB9TVW<DB0ANF<CX2SA
Sent: 090210/2036Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:8138 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:8138-CX2SA
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare frequency choice, etc.
(Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF)
2. Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare frequency choice, etc.
(Rocky Jones)
3. Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare frequency choice, etc.
(Gregg Wonderly)
4. Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare frequency choice, etc.
(Peter Guelzow)
5. Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare frequency choice,
etc. (gu6efb)
6. Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare frequency choice, etc.
(Rocky Jones)
7. Re: PE1RAH's transponder (James Duffey)
8. SATPC32 and Rigexpert (joe)
9. I: Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare frequency choice,
etc. (Francesco Grappi)
10. Re: SATPC32 and Rigexpert (Erich Eichmann)
11. Slightly Off Topic...Iranian satellite Transmitting
Continuously (Armando Mercado)
12. Re: Slightly Off Topic...Iranian satellite Transmitting
Continuously (Gordon J. C. Pearce MM3YEQ)
13. Re: Slightly Off Topic...Iranian satellite Transmitting
Continuously (Gordon J. C. Pearce MM3YEQ)
14. KAGAYAKI nothing heard (Masahiro Arai)
15. Re: KAGAYAKI nothing heard (Dave Aitch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:17:38 +0000
From: Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare frequency
choice, etc.
To: Paul Williamson <kb5mu@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <49908F62.1020804@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Paul Williamson wrote:
>
> "The first burn went relatively well -- there was a small deviation from the
expected burn duration, which placed the spacecraft perigee somewhat higher
than planned. The second burn could not be accomplished because a slow leak in
the high-pressure helium system during
the week the spacecraft was being
reoriented prevented the opening of valves feeding fuel to the thrust
assembly."
> The "small deviation" is known to be due to a design error in the simple
digital logic circuit that controlled the burn duration.
OK. The helium leak was a propulsion system fault. The design error in the
logic was human error and is known so can be
designed out.
>
> On AO-13, the kick motor worked exactly as planned, and the spacecraft
achieved the intended orbit. But that orbit could have been chosen better,
as it turned out. The early re-entry after only 8.5 years was not anticipated,
and probably could have been avoided if
we had been smart enough,
soon enough.
Another "human error" Hindsight is wonderful.
I don't think we should reject an option that requires propulsion because of
past errors that are now well understood.
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Nigel A. Gunn. G8IFF W8IFF (was KC8NHF)
1865 El Camino Drive, Xenia, OH 45385-1115, USA 937 825 5032
e-mail nigel@xxxxx.xxx www http://www.ngunn.net
Member of ARRL, GQRP #11396, QRPARCI #11644, SOC #548, Flying Pig #385,
Dayton ARA #2128, AMSAT-NA LM-1691, AMSAT-UK, MKARS,
ALC
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 14:40:14 -0600
From: Rocky Jones <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare frequency
choice, etc.
To: <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>, <kb5mu@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL106-W2C3D642B90DDB2FA1B43AD6BC0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
> Another "human error" Hindsight is wonderful.
> I don't think we should reject an option that requires propulsion because of
past errors that are now well understood.
>
>
> --
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Nigel A. Gunn. G8IFF W8IFF (was KC8NHF)
> 1865 El Camino Drive, Xenia, OH 45385-1115, USA 937 825 5032
Nigel..."Xenia..." been there...lovely place
What would concern me about propulsion is the fact that these are errors
(which are I think systemic) of not being able to understand a process and
design out the errors.
I've never read (that doesnt mean it doesnt exist I have just never read it)
that a really good understanding of what happened on AO40 exist...but what I
have read is that it is a lot like the gear pins...
Robert
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect.
http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_howitworks_022009
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:17:53 -0600
From: Gregg Wonderly <w5ggw@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare frequency
choice, etc.
To: Rocky Jones <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <49909D81.7030907@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Rocky Jones wrote:
>
>> Another "human error" Hindsight is wonderful.
>> I don't think we should reject an option that requires propulsion because
of past errors that are now well understood.
>>
>>
>> --
>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>> Nigel A. Gunn. G8IFF W8IFF (was KC8NHF)
>> 1865 El Camino Drive, Xenia, OH 45385-1115, USA 937 825 5032
>
>
> Nigel..."Xenia..." been there...lovely place
>
> What would concern me about propulsion is the fact that these are errors
(which are I think systemic) of not being able to understand a process and
design out the errors.
>
> I've never read (that doesnt mean it doesnt exist I have just never read it)
that a really good understanding of what happened on AO40 exist...but what I
have read is that it is a lot like the gear pins...
If you are only learning from mistakes and not proactively avoiding problems
by
design and practice, that is a real issue as Rocky says. Have all the
possible
problems with propulsion been identified, and there is a process or practice
to
control them? Probably not. So, there either has to be an effort made to
make
sure that there will be no catastrophic problems, or there has to be a plan
for
dealing with them in the design which will keep them from impacting other
parts
of the system.
Gregg Wonderly
W5GGW
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:48:55 +0100
From: Peter Guelzow <peter.guelzow@xxxxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare frequency
choice, etc.
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4990B2D7.1040400@xxxxxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
P3-B
Someone forgot that P3-B (OSCAR-10) was hit by the last rocket stage of
the launcher, when they neutralized that stage by venting the remaining
fuel. Unfortunatly in the wrong direction...
OSCAR-10 was hit, Antennas were damaged, the S/C spin was reverse (!)
and the sun was shining on top of the spacecraft instead of illuminating
the solar panels !!!
The S/C was completely out of control, loosing rapidly it's battery
capacity, getting into harsh temperatures due to totally wrong sun
angles and thermal control... The S/C would have been dead and lost,
if Karl Meinzer DJ4ZC would have not started his amazing rescue
operation by completely re-programming the IHU on-the-fly. First he
switched Off all modules and systems which were not urgently needed...
he also programmed the beacon off and only sends some telemetry after a
few hours... this way he was able to slowly re-charge the battery.
Finally there was enough electrical energy to start magnetorqueing and
bringing the S/C into the right attitude. But due to the fact that the
S/C was spinning "backwards", he had to write and upload new navigation
code into the IHU.... After several weeks of emergency, finally AO-10
was in a favorable orbit to continue commissioning and bringing the S/C
into the right attitude for raising the perigee.. if we would have
waited too long, perigee would get too close and the bird would have had
other problems..
During the above emergency, the fuel tanks and helium bottle had some
thermal cycles which were out of the designed specification limits....
Everyone will agree, that this was not the fault of the designer of
P3-A.... any other spacecraft would have been lost...
The "small deviation" mentioned below was not a design error... to my
knowledge two bit's in the SEU's programmable register to set the
burn-time counter were exchanged (wrongly wired in the module to the
connector to the IHU) and the test pattern which was used for testing
did not showed this...
Due to the longer than planned burn-time, the Helium bottle temperature
went shortly below the lower specified limit. Again, this was not a
design flaw or any other mistake...
One can argue if the burn-counter-problem or the emergency caused by the
collision with the last rocket stage after seperation caused the leakage
in the high pressure helium system... but that's history anway..
P3-C (OSCAR-13)
The propulsion system worked perfectly and the planned orbit was reached
exactly. Several experts (including from NASA) were involved in the
planning of OSCAR-10's orbit, which was supposed to be safe / stable for
a long long time...... Only several years later, OE1VKW Viktor
Kudielka was so first one who predicted a premature re-entry of OSCAR-13...
Kudielka V., /Long term Predictions for Highly Elliptic Satellite
Orbits/, Amsat-DL Journal, Jun 1990. pps 5-7. (In German).
Nobody can be blamed... but a lot was learned after this discovery,
even in the professionally world..
P3-D (OSCAR-40)
The catastrophic failure of the propuslion system was not a design
error, it was 100% human failure... The 400N engine was the same
which was used before on AO-10 and AO-13. Unfortunately "almost".. the
engine which was donated to us, was used for some qualification tests,
but 100% functional and 100% OK.. But it had a small modification used
for the qualification.. a venting hole, which was secured with an
additional screw or cap.. normally it's just a hole.. only very few
people knew about it and unfortunately nobody asked what it was,
although it was "red".... during the final and launch integration
this was hidden and nobody noticed it. During some early testing in the
integration lab in Florida, this valve was never used at it was
recommended to not use it too often during "dry test" for reliability
issues.. Later during our intense failure analysis we found a picture
from the earlier integration phase, which showed the engine valve with
this red cap in place.... arghhh...
After the first sign of a malfunction of the engine, it would have been
better to take more time to analyze the behavior... but there was some
kind off pressure and afterwards everybody knows it better anyway..
I can only tell, that the the process which resulted in the catastrophic
engine failure was completely understood in the aftermath...
And still... we had almost 4 years to work with this wonderful
spacecraft on S-band... even with very small antennas... most of the
technology we wanted to test were successfully tested and proofed,
including the Arcjet which was used to raise the perigee, the momentum
wheels, etc... the discovery of an additional (temorary?) radiation
belt was also due to AO-40's CEDEX... and so on...
However, if you ever want another HEO, than there is no way around a
propulsion.... As with P3-D some well known companies which design
propulsion systems will be involved in the design and qualification of
P3-E and P5-A's propulsion system....
73s Peter DB2OS
Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF wrote:
> Paul Williamson wrote:
>
>> "The first burn went relatively well -- there was a small deviation from
the expected burn duration, which placed the spacecraft perigee somewhat
higher
>>
> than planned. The second burn could not be accomplished because a slow leak
in the high-pressure helium system during
> the week the spacecraft was being
> reoriented prevented the opening of valves feeding fuel to the thrust
assembly."
>
>> The "small deviation" is known to be due to a design error in the simple
digital logic circuit that controlled the burn duration.
>>
>
> OK. The helium leak was a propulsion system fault. The design error in the
logic was human error and is known so can be
> designed out.
>
>
>
>> On AO-13, the kick motor worked exactly as planned, and the spacecraft
achieved the intended orbit. But that orbit could have been chosen better,
>>
> as it turned out. The early re-entry after only 8.5 years was not
anticipated, and probably could have been avoided if
> we had been smart enough,
> soon enough.
>
> Another "human error" Hindsight is wonderful.
> I don't think we should reject an option that requires propulsion because of
past errors that are now well understood.
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:55:19 GMT
From: "gu6efb" <gu6efb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare frequency
choice, etc.
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <20090209225576.SM00252@xxxx.x.x.xxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
?
Hi All?I agree with most of the comments made re Amsat I know that there are
many obstacles to over come to get a bird in orbitInformation on the progress
of new satellites seems to be a little scarce Could somebody from Amsat-US and
Amsat-DL give us a current update as to the build progress on there satellite
ie 100% built 50% built etcThe most common cause for complaint is lack of
information if we knew the current Status we will know where to direct our
donations
73 Keith GU6EFB
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:05:20 -0600
From: Rocky Jones <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare frequency
choice, etc.
To: <peter.guelzow@xxxxxx.xx>, Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL106-W337B631E59B2833E32D302D6BD0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 23:48:55 +0100> From: peter.guelzow@xxxxxx.xx> To:
amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare
frequency choice, etc.>
Peter...thanks for your complete (and interesting) run down on the various
propulsion issues on 10, 13, and 40....
There is no doubt that "10" suffered from external forces which were beyond
the control of the designers.
There is however no real excuse for what happened on 40. Try as one might and
put it in any terms one wishes, it is the equivelent of a B767 pilot taking
off with the gear pins in...and there is no real explanation for that which is
satisfactory. The reasons are 1) human error...but more importantly 2)
system/systemic error.
The later is what should concern the AMSAT community as it contemplates a HEO
spacecraft. What it means is at least at the time of AO-40 the expertise to
develop the structural system to deal with procedural issues in all aspects of
the vehicle DID NOT EXIST.
It isnt that the actual "red" "thing" was missed...it is that the engine had
differences (known) from the operational engine and no one stood up and was
recognized who said "before we fly this darn thing we need to REALLY
understand the differences and what that means".
I have no doubt that the lessons of AO-40 are ringing in everyone's ears and
my point is NOT to accelerate that ringing...NOR is it really to say "this is
rocket science...and general that needs rocket scientist".
What it means is that folks who are good at looking at systems (irregardless
of what the systems do) meed to have a good look at how "everything" is done.
The more complex a system is...the more that need exist. The procedures and
standards needed to operate my Ercoupe are somewhat different then needed to
operate The B767.
It wasnt what was done that lost Columbia (or for that matter Challenger) for
NASA...it was how the things were done. Same problem with AO-40...
thanks again for your insight...
Robert WB5MZO life member amsat (and for that matter Ercoupe and B767 driver
LOL)
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_022009
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 18:13:44 -0700
From: James Duffey <JamesDuffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: PE1RAH's transponder
To: Rocky Jones <orbitjet@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <404C3293-1BC2-4F46-BFEF-13230115FA96@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Feb 9, 2009, at 1:01 AM, Rocky Jones wrote:
>
> we should be working to put one on ISS.
Yes, this is a fantastic idea!
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:03:28 -0500
From: joe <jbarkley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] SATPC32 and Rigexpert
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4990E070.9060305@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi All,
I downloaded SATPC32 and installed. I cannot get it to see my 706mkiig
or at least it does snot seems to want to control
it. I am using a Rigexpert plus for an interface. It works great with
all other programs and radios using the CAT control features.
I have tried a few different baud rates and settings but no joy.
Would it be possible anyone is using this type of interface with this
type rig?
This looks like it is the only program that will control this half
duplex radio on both VFOs at once.
Thanks
Joe
KI4TZ
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:38:34 +0100
From: "Francesco Grappi" <f.grappi@xxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] I: Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare
frequency choice, etc.
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <15CB4127C93E4DEEABF791BE605F132D@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Peter DB2OS,
Thank you very much for your precise step by step satellites
history explanation.....hoping that the human community can
learn from these mistakes and never repeat these more....
..waiting for P3-E and P5-A and ...."fingers crossed"...
73'
Frank IW4DVZ
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx Per conto
di
Peter Guelzow
Inviato: luned? 9 febbraio 2009 23.49
A: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Oggetto: [amsat-bb] Re: Was HEO naivete; now GEO rideshare frequency choice,
etc.
P3-B
Someone forgot that P3-B (OSCAR-10) was hit by the last rocket stage of
the launcher, when they neutralized that stage by venting the remaining
fuel. Unfortunatly in the wrong direction...
OSCAR-10 was hit, Antennas were damaged, the S/C spin was reverse (!)
and the sun was shining on top of the spacecraft instead of illuminating
the solar panels !!!
The S/C was completely out of control, loosing rapidly it's battery
capacity, getting into harsh temperatures due to totally wrong sun
angles and thermal control... The S/C would have been dead and lost,
if Karl Meinzer DJ4ZC would have not started his amazing rescue
operation by completely re-programming the IHU on-the-fly. First he
switched Off all modules and systems which were not urgently needed...
he also programmed the beacon off and only sends some telemetry after a
few hours... this way he was able to slowly re-charge the battery.
Finally there was enough electrical energy to start magnetorqueing and
bringing the S/C into the right attitude. But due to the fact that the
S/C was spinning "backwards", he had to write and upload new navigation
code into the IHU.... After several weeks of emergency, finally AO-10
was in a favorable orbit to continue commissioning and bringing the S/C
into the right attitude for raising the perigee.. if we would have
waited too long, perigee would get too close and the bird would have had
other problems..
During the above emergency, the fuel tanks and helium bottle had some
thermal cycles which were out of the designed specification limits....
Everyone will agree, that this was not the fault of the designer of
P3-A.... any other spacecraft would have been lost...
The "small deviation" mentioned below was not a design error... to my
knowledge two bit's in the SEU's programmable register to set the
burn-time counter were exchanged (wrongly wired in the module to the
connector to the IHU) and the test pattern which was used for testing
did not showed this...
Due to the longer than planned burn-time, the Helium bottle temperature
went shortly below the lower specified limit. Again, this was not a
design flaw or any other mistake...
One can argue if the burn-counter-problem or the emergency caused by the
collision with the last rocket stage after seperation caused the leakage
in the high pressure helium system... but that's history anway..
P3-C (OSCAR-13)
The propulsion system worked perfectly and the planned orbit was reached
exactly. Several experts (including from NASA) were involved in the
planning of OSCAR-10's orbit, which was supposed to be safe / stable for
a long long time...... Only several years later, OE1VKW Viktor
Kudielka was so first one who predicted a premature re-entry of OSCAR-13...
Kudielka V., /Long term Predictions for Highly Elliptic Satellite
Orbits/, Amsat-DL Journal, Jun 1990. pps 5-7. (In German).
Nobody can be blamed... but a lot was learned after this discovery,
even in the professionally world..
P3-D (OSCAR-40)
The catastrophic failure of the propuslion system was not a design
error, it was 100% human failure... The 400N engine was the same
which was used before on AO-10 and AO-13. Unfortunately "almost".. the
engine which was donated to us, was used for some qualification tests,
but 100% functional and 100% OK.. But it had a small modification used
for the qualification.. a venting hole, which was secured with an
additional screw or cap.. normally it's just a hole.. only very few
people knew about it and unfortunately nobody asked what it was,
although it was "red".... during the final and launch integration
this was hidden and nobody noticed it. During some early testing in the
integration lab in Florida, this valve was never used at it was
recommended to not use it too often during "dry test" for reliability
issues.. Later during our intense failure analysis we found a picture
from the earlier integration phase, which showed the engine valve with
this red cap in place.... arghhh...
After the first sign of a malfunction of the engine, it would have been
better to take more time to analyze the behavior... but there was some
kind off pressure and afterwards everybody knows it better anyway..
I can only tell, that the the process which resulted in the catastrophic
engine failure was completely understood in the aftermath...
And still... we had almost 4 years to work with this wonderful
spacecraft on S-band... even with very small antennas... most of the
technology we wanted to test were successfully tested and proofed,
including the Arcjet which was used to raise the perigee, the momentum
wheels, etc... the discovery of an additional (temorary?) radiation
belt was also due to AO-40's CEDEX... and so on...
However, if you ever want another HEO, than there is no way around a
propulsion.... As with P3-D some well known companies which design
propulsion systems will be involved in the design and qualification of
P3-E and P5-A's propulsion system....
73s Peter DB2OS
Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF wrote:
> Paul Williamson wrote:
>
>> "The first burn went relatively well -- there was a small deviation from
the
expected burn duration, which placed the spacecraft perigee somewhat higher
>>
> than planned. The second burn could not be accomplished because a slow leak
in
the high-pressure helium system during
> the week the spacecraft was being
> reoriented prevented the opening of valves feeding fuel to the thrust
assembly."
>
>> The "small deviation" is known to be due to a design error in the simple
digital logic circuit that controlled the burn duration.
>>
>
> OK. The helium leak was a propulsion system fault. The design error in the
logic was human error and is known so can be
> designed out.
>
>
>
>> On AO-13, the kick motor worked exactly as planned, and the spacecraft
achieved the intended orbit. But that orbit could have been chosen better,
>>
> as it turned out. The early re-entry after only 8.5 years was not
anticipated,
and probably could have been avoided if
> we had been smart enough,
> soon enough.
>
> Another "human error" Hindsight is wonderful.
> I don't think we should reject an option that requires propulsion because of
past errors that are now well understood.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
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: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:53:40 +0100
From: "Erich Eichmann" <erich.eichmann@xxxxxxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SATPC32 and Rigexpert
To: "joe" <jbarkley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <AF9E743B1B114D8C87A5C07CA65A24FE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Joe,
I suppose you didn't install the additional line between the radio's ACC
jacket and the CTS pin of the COM port? Without that line the program will
not steer the frequencies of the IC-706MKIIG. Please read the detailed
instructions in the "Readme(Icom).txt" file. The file can be opened from the
SatPC32 menu "?", "Hints[Radio] for ....Icom users". It is contained in the
sub folder "Icom" in the SatPC32 program folder. There you will also find a
schematic of that line.
With the Icom semi duplex radios (when used as a single radio for satellite
operation) the program must not change frequencies while the radio is in TX
mode. Otherwise frequency errors will occur (VFO A and B will swap their
frequencies). Unfortunately the IC-706MKIIG doesn't provide a CAT command to
check the radio's PTT status via the software (the newer IC-7000 does).
Therefore the program checks the voltage at pin 7 of the ACC jacket. The
voltage at that pin is appr. 3 - 4 V during RX mode and drops to 0 during TX
mode. The program outputs frequency commands to the radio only if the CTS
pin of the COM port has been pulled up by that voltage.
BTW: The same problem occurs with the IC-910H in non-satellite mode with
SatPC32ISS. The IC-910H allows to check the PTT status via the software,
however. Therefore I have recently uploaded a patch file on my website that
makes the additional line unnecesary with SatPC32ISS and the IC-910H. I
will soon upload also a patch file for the IC-7000.
73s, Erich, DK1TB
----- Original Message -----
From: "joe" <jbarkley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 3:03 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] SATPC32 and Rigexpert
> Hi All,
>
> I downloaded SATPC32 and installed. I cannot get it to see my 706mkiig
> or at least it does snot seems to want to control
> it. I am using a Rigexpert plus for an interface. It works great with
> all other programs and radios using the CAT control features.
> I have tried a few different baud rates and settings but no joy.
> Would it be possible anyone is using this type of interface with this
> type rig?
> This looks like it is the only program that will control this half
> duplex radio on both VFOs at once.
> Thanks
> Joe
> KI4TZ
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:43:42 -0500
From: "Armando Mercado" <am25544@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Slightly Off Topic...Iranian satellite
Transmitting Continuously
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <220F6D88165C4F15BE8E62119F8C4CB2@xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252";
reply-type=original
(Off topic content here so look away if offended...)
Hello,
Iran's first satellite is now reported to be transmitting a 20
second, 1 KHz tone every 100 seconds. Frequency
is 464.9875 to 465.0125 MHz. Omid was previously
obsevered transmitting only on passes passing over
Iran. I have not heard it yet but will be listening.
See the following for more:
http://www.zarya.info/Tracking/Omid/OmidObservations2.php
73, Armando N8IGJ
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:59:52 +0000
From: "Gordon J. C. Pearce MM3YEQ" <gordonjcp@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Slightly Off Topic...Iranian satellite
Transmitting Continuously
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <1234277992.4731.35.camel@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 09:43 -0500, Armando Mercado wrote:
> (Off topic content here so look away if offended...)
>
> Hello,
>
> Iran's first satellite is now reported to be transmitting a 20
> second, 1 KHz tone every 100 seconds. Frequency
> is 464.9875 to 465.0125 MHz. Omid was previously
> obsevered transmitting only on passes passing over
> Iran. I have not heard it yet but will be listening.
>
> See the following for more:
> http://www.zarya.info/Tracking/Omid/OmidObservations2.php
>
> 73, Armando N8IGJ
I recorded something that sounds like telemetry on one of its early
orbits, but nothing much since. I did hear the 1kHz tone a day or so
after it was launched. You can hear my recording on the Wikipedia page
for Omid.
Glad to hear it's still up there and working - I'll have another listen
on the next pass!
73s,
Gordon MM3YEQ
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:25:59 +0000
From: "Gordon J. C. Pearce MM3YEQ" <gordonjcp@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Slightly Off Topic...Iranian satellite
Transmitting Continuously
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <1234279559.4731.40.camel@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 14:59 +0000, Gordon J. C. Pearce MM3YEQ wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 09:43 -0500, Armando Mercado wrote:
> > (Off topic content here so look away if offended...)
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Iran's first satellite is now reported to be transmitting a 20
> > second, 1 KHz tone every 100 seconds. Frequency
> > is 464.9875 to 465.0125 MHz. Omid was previously
> > obsevered transmitting only on passes passing over
> > Iran. I have not heard it yet but will be listening.
> >
> > See the following for more:
> > http://www.zarya.info/Tracking/Omid/OmidObservations2.php
> >
> > 73, Armando N8IGJ
>
> I recorded something that sounds like telemetry on one of its early
> orbits, but nothing much since. I did hear the 1kHz tone a day or so
> after it was launched. You can hear my recording on the Wikipedia page
> for Omid.
>
> Glad to hear it's still up there and working - I'll have another listen
> on the next pass!
Sure 'nuff, it's transmitting a tone for a few seconds every
minute-and-a-half. Interestingly it keys up the TX for a second or two
before the tone starts.
Orbit 124 passed directly over the UK Midlands, placing Maison MM3YEQ
just a little north of the centre of the footprint as it went directly
west to east. Absolutely booming signal.
Gordon MM3YEQ
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:25:24 +0900
From: Masahiro Arai <m-arai@x.xxxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] KAGAYAKI nothing heard
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <200902101625.AA02590@xxxx.x.xxxxx.xx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
KAGAYAKI command station and related statainos are still looking for
KAGAYAKI.
KAGAYAKI was to transmit morse code on FM after separation form H-2A
but nothing heard until now. The command station conjectures KAGAYAKI
is tranmitting morse code on FM or 9600bps packet at 437.375MHz. The
command station also conjectures the output power is very low because
of not expanding antenna and solar panel. Command station is trying
to watch KAGAYAKI using FFT spectrum analyzer.
Object D is estimated as KAGAYAKI. Please watch KAGAYAKI and let me
know if you heard her signal. I'll pass the info to command station.
English web site is now available.
http://www.sorun.co.jp/e_kagayaki/top.html
Thank you for your help
Masa JN1GKZ Tokyo Japan
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:47:22 -0000
From: "Dave Aitch" <dave@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: KAGAYAKI nothing heard
To: "'Masahiro Arai'" <m-arai@x.xxxxx.xx.xx>
Cc: 'AMSAT-BB' <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <002001c98b9f$3f77da50$be678ef0$@xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Can we have some Keplerian elements please ?
73, Dave.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 4, Issue 68
***************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
