| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 03.07.09 01:31l 1081 Lines 32806 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 47803-CX2SA
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V4 309
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<DK0WUE<F4BWT<YO6PLB<CX2SA
Sent: 090702/2326Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:47803 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:47803-CX2SA
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Send AMSAT-BB mailing list submissions to
amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
amsat-bb-request@xxxxx.xxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
amsat-bb-owner@xxxxx.xxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of AMSAT-BB digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: The Moon is our Future (MM)
2. DO-64 software support for PSK-1(T) hardware? (Greg Beat)
3. 24 Ghz stats (Howie)
4. Re: Has anyone considered??? (David Moisan)
5. Re: DO-64 software support for PSK-1(T) hardware? (PE0SAT)
6. Moon project: why not a passive refeector? (andy thomas)
7. Re: The Moon is our Future (John B. Stephensen)
8. Re: Has anyone considered??? (John B. Stephensen)
9. Re: The Moon is our Future (Joe)
10. Re: Richard Garriott qsl (Glenn AA5PK)
11. Re: The Moon is our Future (Armando Mercado)
12. Re: The Moon is our Future (Joe)
13. Re: How you do DOPPLER correction in Linear Transponders? (i8cvs)
14. Re: The Moon is our Future (G0MRF@xxx.xxxx
15. 13 colonies baloney (Thomas McGrane)
16. Re: The Moon is our Future (Armando Mercado)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: MM <ka1rrw@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Moon is our Future
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx tosca005@xxx.xxx
Message-ID: <386473.37970.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi W0JT:
I like your simple explanation of the path loss; it should help many
understand that an Active Repeater on the Moon will not require as big of an
antenna system as passive Moon EME station.
Now we just need to run the path loss numbers a few different ways to see
which Amateur Radio Band option works the best.
If we are able to piggyback on a NASA funded Unmanned Moon lander, then we
have the possibility of the least expensive flight to High orbit possible.
This is an opportunity we just can not miss trying for.
Our only other option for affordable high orbit flight may be with China. I
believe the High orbit flights with NASA and EAS are now cost prohibitive.
73 Miles WF1F MarexMG.org
--- On Thu, 7/2/09, tosca005@xxx.xxx <tosca005@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> From: tosca005@xxx.xxx <tosca005@xxx.xxx>
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Moon is our Future
> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 11:52 AM
> On Jul 2 2009, kd8bxp@xxx.xxx
> wrote:
>
> > Don't want to get a whole new thing started here but -
> I don't think we
> > ever went to the moon in 1969 and I don't think we
> will ever goto the
> > moon - in 2012 or whenever they proposed a "return" to
> the moon
>
> With that level of disbelief I can certainly see why you
> are predisposed to
> discount the possibility of a moon-based transponder.
>
> > I would love to see an amatuer repeater on the moon
> thou - from my
> > understanding EME is expensive to do, so I think it
> would leave most of
> > us out
>
> Not necessarily. Remember, with conventional EME, you send
> as large a
> signal as you can muster towards the moon, incur huge path
> losses along the
> way, then incur a huge loss because the moon is a very
> imperfect reflector
> of RF energy, then incur the huge path loss back from moon
> to earth.
>
> With a moon-based repeater, you send as large a signal as
> you can muster
> towards the moon, incur the same path loss from earth to
> moon; BUT, THEN
> you enlarge the signal with a gain antenna at the repeater,
> and then have a
> sensitive receiver that can detect and amplify the signal.
> The repeater
> then transponds the signal to a different frequency band,
> amplifies it as
> much as equipment weight and power availability allow,
> transmit it through
> a gain antenna, and only THEN incur the huge path loss from
> moon to earth.
>
> Because the path loss is only in a single direction, and
> instead of an
> inefficient (lossy) passive reflector, you have gain
> antennas for reception
> and transmission, plus amplification on receive and on
> transmit, the net
> earth station requirements should be much less than
> conventional EME.
>
> That's not to say it would be easy, just that it should be
> easier than
> conventional EME in terms of station requirements on earth.
> As has been
> mentioned numerous times already, the station requirements
> for the space
> end of the system are enormously more difficult than
> anything we've ever
> tackled so far with either LEO or HEO satellites.
>
> But there's no harm in DISCUSSING the idea, and learning
> about the pitfalls
> and possibilities as part of the discussion. Even if it
> never comes to
> pass, we should all be a bit more knowledgeable after
> having had the
> discussion.
>
> As far as the dreaming goes, wouldn't an L/S transponder be
> better than a
> V/U or U/V transponder? Granted, the path loss is greater,
> but the antenna
> gain is easier to produce...
>
> While I am a firm believer in the KISS principle (Keep It
> Simple, Stupid!),
> I am getting a little tired of hearing people complain
> endlessly about the
> downfall of AO-40 being due to its complexity. Uhh, the
> downfall of AO-40
> was human error, which will ALWAYS be an issue. The only
> reason that AO-40
> was ever usable at all was BECAUSE of its complexity, i.e.,
> the redundancy
> of multiple transponders that could be switched into place
> after initial
> failures, etc. OF COURSE, a mission to the moon needs to be
> as light and
> compact as it can be made, and therefore much simpler than
> AO-40, but due
> to the harsh environment in which it would be asked to
> operate, it needs to
> be as complex as necessary to get the job done, i.e. not as
> simple as AO-10
> or AO-13.
>
> 73 de W0JT
> AMSAT-NA LM#2292
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx.
> Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur
> satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:59:40 -0500
From: "Greg Beat" <gregory.beat@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] DO-64 software support for PSK-1(T) hardware?
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <84012B85536F4AEBBA4879625A45CECD@xxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
I see that DO-64 / Delfi-C3 has a 1200 baud BPSK downlink and their RASCAL
software uses the
computer's soundcard DSP for decoding.
Does the RASCAL software have an ability to support data stream from the
PacComm PSK-1 combo?
DO-64 Frequencies:
a.. Primary telemetry downlink: 145.870 MHz 1200 Baud BPSK AX.25 400mW
b.. Backup telemetry downlink: 145.930 MHz 1200 Baud BPSK AX.25 400mW
c.. Linear transponder passband downlink: 145.880 - 145.920 MHz (inverting)
400mW PEP
d.. Linear transponder passband uplink: 435.570 - 435.530 MHz
e.. Transponder mode beacon: 145.870 MHz CW (10dB below transponder PEP)
====
w9gb
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:00:13 -0400
From: "Howie" <howied231@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] 24 Ghz stats
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <BAY142-DS1A4CEFE9281D17E49B65FE72F0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In response to Joe, W9SBD, at 24 Ghz:
6' antenna = 51 dB gain, 3dB BW = .4 deg, EIRP @xx = 126 KW
4' antenna = 48 dB gain, 3dB BW = .6 deg, EIRP @xx = 63 KW
18" antenna = 39 dB gain, 3dB BW = 1.6 deg, EIRP @xx = 8 KW
All figures rounded to next whole number, gains assume 65% efficiency.
We have excellent space allocations at 3.4 GHz for downlink that would be
very inexpensive to build. Even a high end 30 deg./K LNB with external 10
MHz. reference is less than $500 new and will convert 3.4 Ghz to 950 Mhz.
The used price is much lower. I have sketched out some ideas to compensate
and downconvert a really cheap ($50) DRO LNB to a 432 MHz. IF using mostly
off the shelf parts. This band is great for space comms and can use very
inexpensive commercial parts. There is very little terrestrial activity to
worry about and this band is not allocated for commercial downlinks in this
region. In areas where it is allocated, the frequencies below 3.410 don't
seem to be popular commercially.
Howie AB2S
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:20:10 -0400
From: David Moisan <dmoisan@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Has anyone considered???
To: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<D5370ABB89BF3F4B937FDEBD6BAB78936013331E8D@xxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Quote:
Has anyone considered the notion that the communications from a HEO or Moon
or Mars need not be analog? Has anyone considered a digital mode such as
WSJT for comms? I know for a fact people are running meteor scatter and EME
using a single beam (albeit a long one) and 150 watts. This is not out of
Personally, I have no use for ssb or cw, but I would definitely like to try
EME with WSJT or similar modes. I would also prefer the higher frequencies.
I can't aim a 2m beam out of my apartment window but higher bands would not be
a problem. Indeed, that's probably the only way one could go in an urban
environment. I can't see that my investment and effort would be any less for
a "simpler" mode.
(I'd go on about how 70cm is really prevalent and that, despite what some old-
timers think, most hams aren't saving their pennies for the Benton Harbor
lunchbox anymore.)
73, Dave, N1KGH
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 22:20:58 +0200
From: "PE0SAT" <pe0sat@xxxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: DO-64 software support for PSK-1(T) hardware?
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<5d8c4468bcac02157aa9e0f1c318527d.squirrel@xxxxxxx.xxxxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
On Thu, July 2, 2009 21:59, Greg Beat wrote:
Hi Greg,
> I see that DO-64 / Delfi-C3 has a 1200 baud BPSK downlink and their
RASCAL software uses the computer's soundcard DSP for decoding.
>
> Does the RASCAL software have an ability to support data stream from the
PacComm PSK-1 combo?
Look for Warble, it can be found on
http://members.casema.nl/b.ubbels/pe4wj.htm
Goodluck
> ====
> w9gb
--
With regards PE0SAT
Internet web-page http://www.ham.vgnet.nl/
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 21:07:31 +0000 (GMT)
From: andy thomas <andythomasmail@xxxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Moon project: why not a passive refeector?
To: amsat <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <229621.68936.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Guys,
taking a tip from ECHO, why not improve the EME link budget by building a
structure of resonant cavities at 2m or 70cm, and above? Such a structure
could be built by a metallic (reflective) polymer surface "bubble" or pyramid,
and an automatic system to inject hardening-foam to give it rigidity.
Our beams on earth would point to the structure at a target frequency and the
increased reflectivity of the structure would bring EME possible for more
modest arrays.
Would bring OSCAR-0 into the backyard...
justa thought...
andy G0SFJ
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 21:17:25 -0000
From: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Moon is our Future
To: "MM" <ka1rrw@xxxxx.xxx>, <kg4zlb@xxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>,
"Jack K." <kd1pe.1@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <2A4D370D34E344E48B0C1F1335180F49@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8";
reply-type=original
Path loss for a lunar downlink at 435 MHz is 197 dB and the sky temperature
is about 75 K. If you assume a 2.5 kHz wide SSB voice downlink and 10dB
average SNR (16 dB peak) a perfect receiver needs to see -130 dBm PEP input.
Given 5 dBic of gain on the moon and 17 dBic (one long yagi) of gain on the
earth, the lunar transmitter needs to provide +45 dBm PEP (32 Watts) per
user.
73,
John
KD6OZH
----- Original Message -----
From: "MM" <ka1rrw@xxxxx.xxx>
To: <kg4zlb@xxxxx.xxx>; <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>; "Jack K." <kd1pe.1@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:31 UTC
Subject: [amsat-bb] The Moon is our Future
>
> Theoretically we may have a free ride to the Moon for an Amateur radio
> repeater!
>
> In the past, the flight to the moon for a Amateur radio project has been
> cost prohibitive. We just could not afford to pay for the ride to the
> Moon.
> NASA is going to the moon with unmanned landers. NASA is open to the idea
> of flying some public service projects to the moon on their landers.
>
> Now there exists the possibility of getting a free ride to the moon,
> curtsy of NASA.
>
> What we need are the following:
>
> A stable club with funding to build a simple transponder project.
> A plan for a simple transponder (KISS no complex P3E).
> A link budget plan for a Moon transponder.
>
>
> One theory:
> We need a simple Mode-J transponder (2-meters up, 440 down).
> Low power consumption.
> Assume minimal antenna gain from the Lander (3 dBd on each antenna)
> Assume transmitter power 5-10 watts.
>
> Questions:
> What?s the link budget?
> How much gain will be needed on earth for such a setup?
> Can we build a working mockup in 1 year or less.
>
> The Moon is within Reach. Let?s Go for IT.
>
> Miles WF1F MarexMG.org
>
>
> --- On Wed, 7/1/09, Jack K. <kd1pe.1@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>> From: Jack K. <kd1pe.1@xxxxx.xxx>
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Rebuttal - Re: Unused sats
>> To: kg4zlb@xxxxx.xxxx amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>> Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 4:46 PM
>> I have to disagree in the strongest
>> of terms about disregarding HEOs "for
>> now" which in essence will mean to become forever. Until,
>> or unless, we
>> could come up with something along the lines of a "Cell"
>> system of leos, we
>> are missing one of the major advantages of Satellites and
>> that is almost
>> guaranteed communications for long periods (several hours)
>> at a time... I am
>> in no way denigrating LEOs as they have their place, but in
>> the major schema
>> of things HEOS will and always have rule given the state of
>> communications
>> art...
>>
>> I understand the desire to "do something" but I suggest
>> that the major
>> thrust should be directed at getting a transponder on the
>> moon (or Mars) or
>> some more KISS type HEOs up... Cubesats can take care of
>> themselves if we
>> do, Heck I would even join in and participate in something
>> like I just
>> mentioned, I just can not get excited about "Contest style"
>> contacts with a
>> 5-12 min window most of the time... I do that on 2 meters
>> scatter all I
>> want,
>>
>> DE Jack - KD1PE
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David - KG4ZLB" <kg4zlb@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:09 PM
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Unused sats
>>
>>
>> > All good points but forget the HEO's for now - we just
>> need a good
>> > source of regularly launched easy sats in LEO to
>> augment the few working
>> > birds we have and replace what we have to as they fall
>> out of the sky or
>> > just stop working.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 8
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 21:23:53 -0000
From: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Has anyone considered???
To: "MM" <ka1rrw@xxxxx.xxx>, <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>, "'Joe'"
<nss@xxx.xxx>, "Jack K." <kd1pe.1@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx kg4zlb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <2AA1E3DE33BA462E97D2A41A1F943455@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
The analog circuitry also needs to be rad-hard. The object of DSP is to
reduce power reqirements and rad-hard solar panels are the million-dollar
component.
73,
John
KD6OZH
----- Original Message -----
From: "MM" <ka1rrw@xxxxx.xxx>
To: <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>; "'Joe'" <nss@xxx.xxx>; "Jack K."
<kd1pe.1@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>; <kg4zlb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 15:21 UTC
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Has anyone considered???
Yes, Digital is an option.
However, i would want it to pass through the analog transponder unprocessed.
The reason is that we can't afford the Million dollar Radiation hardened
chips to support digital processing required on satellites.
DSP or SDR will add to the Cost and add many years to the project.
WE need projects much faster than have been delivered in the past, 1-2 year
schedules not 10 year schedules.
Miles
--- On Thu, 7/2/09, Jack K. <kd1pe.1@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> From: Jack K. <kd1pe.1@xxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: Has anyone considered???
> To: bruninga@xxxx.xxxx "'Joe'" <nss@xxx.xxx>, "'MM'" <ka1rrw@xxxxx.xxx>
> Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx kg4zlb@xxxxx.xxx
> Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:40 AM
> Has anyone considered the notion that
> the communications from a HEO or Moon or Mars need not be
> analog? Has anyone considered a digital mode such as WSJT
> for comms? I know for a fact people are running meteor
> scatter and EME using a single beam (albeit a long one) and
> 150 watts. This is not out of the reach of most hams and it
> is not non-viable communications mode... Heck the US Navy
> even ran RTTY in the 60's from Hawaii to Maryland as a
> normal mode of communications (yes it was big and wieldy, I
> just mentioned it as an aside).
>
> DE - KD1PE - Jack
>
>
>
> >> Why go with the minimal antenna gain?
> >> ... any antenna with a 3 db point that exceeds
> >> 6.5 degrees is just wasting transmitter power.
> >
> > I think that would be about a 24 dB gain
> antenna. Pretty big
> > and would take some careful alignment... Kinda
> like a realy big
> > EME array
> >
> >> Just remember what an Oscar 10 station took
> >> to have reliable communications, At Apogee
> >> it was only 35,000 miles away, the Moon is ...]
> >> [250,000 miles]
> >
> > Which is 7 times farther, squared or 50 times more
> power (about
> > 17 dB).
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:01:19 -0500
From: Joe <nss@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Moon is our Future
To: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh@xxxxxxx.xxx>, amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4A4D2E2F.8040004@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Now thats pretty good!
But why is it soo good, when the HEO birds were soo hard?
something missing?
John B. Stephensen wrote:
>Path loss for a lunar downlink at 435 MHz is 197 dB and the sky temperature
>is about 75 K. If you assume a 2.5 kHz wide SSB voice downlink and 10dB
>average SNR (16 dB peak) a perfect receiver needs to see -130 dBm PEP input.
>Given 5 dBic of gain on the moon and 17 dBic (one long yagi) of gain on the
>earth, the lunar transmitter needs to provide +45 dBm PEP (32 Watts) per
>user.
>
>73,
>
>John
>KD6OZH
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "MM" <ka1rrw@xxxxx.xxx>
>To: <kg4zlb@xxxxx.xxx>; <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>; "Jack K." <kd1pe.1@xxxxx.xxx>
>Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:31 UTC
>Subject: [amsat-bb] The Moon is our Future
>
>
>
>
>>Theoretically we may have a free ride to the Moon for an Amateur radio
>>repeater!
>>
>>In the past, the flight to the moon for a Amateur radio project has been
>>cost prohibitive. We just could not afford to pay for the ride to the
>>Moon.
>>NASA is going to the moon with unmanned landers. NASA is open to the idea
>>of flying some public service projects to the moon on their landers.
>>
>>Now there exists the possibility of getting a free ride to the moon,
>>curtsy of NASA.
>>
>>What we need are the following:
>>
>>A stable club with funding to build a simple transponder project.
>>A plan for a simple transponder (KISS no complex P3E).
>>A link budget plan for a Moon transponder.
>>
>>
>>One theory:
>>We need a simple Mode-J transponder (2-meters up, 440 down).
>>Low power consumption.
>>Assume minimal antenna gain from the Lander (3 dBd on each antenna)
>>Assume transmitter power 5-10 watts.
>>
>>Questions:
>>What?s the link budget?
>>How much gain will be needed on earth for such a setup?
>>Can we build a working mockup in 1 year or less.
>>
>>The Moon is within Reach. Let?s Go for IT.
>>
>>Miles WF1F MarexMG.org
>>
>>
>>--- On Wed, 7/1/09, Jack K. <kd1pe.1@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: Jack K. <kd1pe.1@xxxxx.xxx>
>>>Subject: [amsat-bb] Rebuttal - Re: Unused sats
>>>To: kg4zlb@xxxxx.xxxx amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>>>Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 4:46 PM
>>>I have to disagree in the strongest
>>>of terms about disregarding HEOs "for
>>>now" which in essence will mean to become forever. Until,
>>>or unless, we
>>>could come up with something along the lines of a "Cell"
>>>system of leos, we
>>>are missing one of the major advantages of Satellites and
>>>that is almost
>>>guaranteed communications for long periods (several hours)
>>>at a time... I am
>>>in no way denigrating LEOs as they have their place, but in
>>>the major schema
>>>of things HEOS will and always have rule given the state of
>>>communications
>>>art...
>>>
>>>I understand the desire to "do something" but I suggest
>>>that the major
>>>thrust should be directed at getting a transponder on the
>>>moon (or Mars) or
>>>some more KISS type HEOs up... Cubesats can take care of
>>>themselves if we
>>>do, Heck I would even join in and participate in something
>>>like I just
>>>mentioned, I just can not get excited about "Contest style"
>>>contacts with a
>>>5-12 min window most of the time... I do that on 2 meters
>>>scatter all I
>>>want,
>>>
>>>DE Jack - KD1PE
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "David - KG4ZLB" <kg4zlb@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:09 PM
>>>Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Unused sats
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>All good points but forget the HEO's for now - we just
>>>>
>>>>
>>>need a good
>>>
>>>
>>>>source of regularly launched easy sats in LEO to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>augment the few working
>>>
>>>
>>>>birds we have and replace what we have to as they fall
>>>>
>>>>
>>>out of the sky or
>>>
>>>
>>>>just stop working.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.2/2214 - Release Date: 07/02/09
05:54:00
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 17:09:29 -0500
From: "Glenn AA5PK" <aa5pk@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Richard Garriott qsl
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <64521EEF35A348179A15195C768B03F6@xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=original
I received my QSL from Richard today along with a nice letter explaining,
among other things, why it's taken this long to get the 500+ QSLs out in the
mail.
Glenn AA5PK
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:20:17 -0400
From: "Armando Mercado" <am25544@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Moon is our Future
To: <dave@xxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <F8255B5CE3E64B2191A91422C2AAF020@xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your comments.
If the "international project" approach were
a successful model we would have a constellation
of amateur satellites in HEO/GEO flying now.
But, different space groups have different
priorities.
I am not opposed to a lunar repeater, but
I think we can get a bigger bang for the buck
by pursuing other opitions.
To me this sounds like a one time stunt that
will take most of our already limited resources.
73's Armando N8IGJ
----- Original Message -----
From: D R Mynatt
To: Armando Mercado
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: The Moon is our Future
A moon repeater/datacom/SSTV/cw whatever else we can do, could be
coordinated with *all* the various amateur groups, not just AMSAT-NA. This
could make this an international project, similar to ESMO and ASMO projects
under way now. It would be financially feasible if, for instance, we landed
first (probably not going to happen) and, if I remember correctly, collect the
cash prize for the first non-commercial moon landing. I think that's still
out there, isn't it?
Dave//KA0SWT
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:24:42 -0500
From: Joe <nss@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Moon is our Future
To: Armando Mercado <am25544@xxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4A4D33AA.4080203@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
This I also agree with. While the Moon would be a flashy cool thing,
In actuality it's less productive than a GEO bird.
Now two geo birds with their dead zones out in the empty Pacific,
Linked together would be the most awesome system yes?
Joe WB9SBD
Armando Mercado wrote:
>Hi Dave,
>
>Thanks for your comments.
>
>If the "international project" approach were
>a successful model we would have a constellation
>of amateur satellites in HEO/GEO flying now.
>But, different space groups have different
>priorities.
>
>I am not opposed to a lunar repeater, but
>I think we can get a bigger bang for the buck
>by pursuing other opitions.
>
>To me this sounds like a one time stunt that
>will take most of our already limited resources.
>
>73's Armando N8IGJ
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D R Mynatt
> To: Armando Mercado
> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: The Moon is our Future
>
>
> A moon repeater/datacom/SSTV/cw whatever else we can do, could be
coordinated with *all* the various amateur groups, not just AMSAT-NA. This
could make this an international project, similar to ESMO and ASMO projects
under way now. It would be financially feasible if, for instance, we landed
first (probably not going to happen) and, if I remember correctly, collect the
cash prize for the first non-commercial moon landing. I think that's still
out there, isn't it?
>
> Dave//KA0SWT
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.2/2214 - Release Date: 07/02/09
05:54:00
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:42:18 +0200
From: "i8cvs" <domenico.i8cvs@xxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: How you do DOPPLER correction in Linear
Transponders?
To: "Fabiano Moser" <fabianomoser@xxxxx.xxx>, "amsat-bb"
<AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <00cc01c9fb66$5af7e040$0201a8c0@xxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fabiano Moser" <fabianomoser@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "amsat-bb" <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 6:19 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] How you do DOPPLER correction in Linear Transponders?
Dear friends,
We know that some Satellite Operators use diferent system to doppler
control.
For Linear Transponder
1) Adjust uplink and downlink automatic by CAT? (Not always woks, some times
I?m up or down from the computer adjust)
2) Adjust uplink and downlink manual
3) Keep Uplink fixed and adjust only the Downlink frequency.
What is the more indicate method to use?
FT-847 have knob to adjust Uplink without change downlink VFO, and I?m using
it to keep my voice in downlink at same downlink much I can.
But I know some operators use fixed uplink.
How you do?
--
73
Fabiano Moser CR7/PY5RX
ARISS-PORTUGAL (Amateur Radio on the International Space Station)
Representative at Teleconference and Portugal Telebridge Coordinator.
AMRAD/AMSAT-CT
http://www.amrad.pt/ariss.php
Hi Fabiano, CR7/PY5RX
My preferred metod (from OSCAR-6 to AO40) is to adjust only the Uplink
frequency in order to keep my voice in downlink as clear as possible exactly
as you actually do manually.
If the station in contact with me moves up or down I invite the operator to
move the VFO of his TX to come again in my constant receiving frequency.
73" de
i8CVS Domenico
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:47:48 EDT
From: G0MRF@xxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Moon is our Future
To: ka1rrw@xxxxx.xxxx amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <c85.51e12f35.377e9314@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
In a message dated 02/07/2009 13:42:15 GMT Standard Time, ka1rrw@xxxxx.xxx
writes:
Right now this is the concept theory phase.
Is a 2m/440 SSB transponder practical?
If our analysis proves that it is not, then we can move on higher in
frequency until we find an affordable solution (within the ITU guidelines
2m to 440. ? No, too much noise from Earth on 2m and too much path loss
on 440.
440 to 2m is a much better solution
David
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:58:50 -0700
From: "Thomas McGrane" <n2oeq@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] 13 colonies baloney
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <3f6fe558ea644d1589d85b953d95fd8d.n2oeq@xxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mr. Semple
I could not be bothered logging into QRZ.com for your email address.
I did not appreciate being bumped off echo while trying to reach w8mrr.
Your lame excuse of celebrating the 13 colonies to hog the satellite was
inappropriate.
Please dont bump me again.
America is nothing like what fought the original revolution.
Who are you kidding, not me. pat n2oeq
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 19:06:35 -0400
From: "Armando Mercado" <am25544@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Moon is our Future
To: <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <1225FF9E667E4D16A8BEC8140F4F0F01@xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hi Nigel,
Indeed, I can hear the ker-chunking and
cordless phone calls now. :-)
Armando, N8IGJ
>Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:23:08 +0000
>From: Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Moon is our Future
>To: Armando Mercado <am25544@xxxxxx.xxx>
>Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>Message-ID: <4A4CECFC.6070504@xxxxx.xxx>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>It would be the only repeater anywhere that I've seen that would get
>sufficient use to justify it's existance.
>Armando Mercado wrote:
>> Not to be a wet blanket, but what is the
>> advantage of an amateur repeater on the moon?
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 309
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
