... and if I recall, this was a much more common occurrence on RS-12/13, where its mode KT uplink on 15 meters saw quite a number of casual QSOs being relayed over to 10 meters via the satellite. Nobody really seemed to be bothered by that. Why would AO-7 be any different?
Greg KO6TH > Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:14:55 +0000 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-7 Record > > > > When there is vhf/uhf contest going on I occasionally hear a contester on the > AO-7 downlink. However due to fact that AO-7 has an inverting band pass the > UHF uplink which is USB comes down LSB. This of course is unknown to the > contester. Whereas everyone using AO-7 uplinks in LSB so that we receive in > USB on the 145mhz downlink. This way I can tell who is the unintentional > satellite operator. I think I got that right. > > 73 Bob W7LRD > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Duffey" <[email protected]> > To: "Andrew Glasbrenner" <[email protected]> > Cc: "James Duffey" <[email protected]>, "Amsat-bb BB" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 4:20:45 PM > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-7 Record > > Drew - Thanks for the comments and shedding light on this topic. > > On Jul 17, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote: > > > Let me clarify something here for the record, especially since it keeps > > coming up. We absolutely DO have the ability to command AO-7, including a > > command set that will result in the satellite being silenced permanently. > > There simply is not much operational advantage to it, even when in > > continuous illumination. The ability to ceaase transmissions is all that is > > required of us by the FCC; I just hope we never have to do it. You do not > > have to look to hard to find other amateur satellites that are derelicts > > though... > > I did not know this. Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for stating that we > were flying a satellite we cannot control and I am sorry for adding to the > confusion on this issue. It will not happen again. > > > Additionally, although not stated in this discussion, there is much > > misconception about the legality of Mode B with the 432 uplink. AMSAT has > > an FCC waiver that is still in effect, so using the 432 is completely legal > > for US operators, at least. > > As you say, I did not say that Mode B was illegal and did not mean to imply > that it was illegal. But it does fall outside the general guidelines for > amateur satellite operations today and we should consider that issue when we > use it on Mode B. > > I based my comments on the AMSAT Satellite Summary of AMSAT Oscar AO-7 > located on the AMSAT website. See: > > < http://www.amsat.org/amsat/sats/n7hpr/ao7.html > > > Which contains the following two paragraphs: > > "*Note: Due to changes in Amateur Service and Amateur Satellite Service there > are questions as to legality of Amateurs transmitting to AO-7. The uplink > frequency predates the WARC '79 allocation of 435-438 MHz by the ITU for the > Amateur Satellite Service and places the uplink in 70cm weak signal segment.' > > "Potential users should realize that when they are uplinking to a satellite, > they are no longer operating in the Amateur Service but instead operating in > the Amateur Satellite Service. Thus they are subject to Amateur Satellite > Service rules. Therefore uplinking to AO-7 is possibly illegal since the > Amateur Satellite Service is not permitted at 432.1 MHz. Also, since the IARU > bandplan has the 432.1 MHz range earmarked as "weak signal" in all three > Regions, it would appear that all users trying to access the uplink are also > outside the Amateur Satellite Service rules and regulations." > > The AMSAT web page is a prominent return when one searches for Oscar 7 on > Google. Thanks for pointing out that these statements are incorrect, or at > the very least, overcautious. > > > As it is an uplink, there is absolutely no ill effect AO-7 can have on > > terrestrial 432 operations. > > I agree for the most part, AO-7 uplink on 70cm will in general have little > effect on 432 operations. But to say it has absolutely no ill effect is > hyperbole. Consider this situation. A multi contest station is looking for > QSOs on 70 cm Sunday evening and tunes across someone calling CQ in the > uplink passband. The contest station thinks it is a terrestrial station in > the contest and calls him. The station calling in the uplink hears the > contest station on the satellite downlink and they have a QSO, exchanging > signal strengths and grid squares. The contest station logs the contact and > moves on. The multistation owner later gets a QSL from the station in the > uplink claiming a satellite contact since he copied the contest station on > the downlink. THe multistation owner realizes that his multistation has > violated the contest rule that prohibits satellite operation in contests. > Respecting the rules, he withdraws his submission and asks that it be > considered a check log and is ou! t ! > of the competition with a very good score. This is an unusual case, I grant > you, but I have been "distracted," for want of a better word, a time or two > by satellite users in the OSCAR 7 uplink during a contest until I realize > that they are not terrestrial stations in the contest, but trying to uplink > to Oscar 7. Usually it is obvious, occasionally it is not. No harm done, > other than the waste of a few minutes. I suspect that a few others may have > had similar experiences. > > If satellite operators on the 70 cm uplink are aware of their proximity to > the 70cm calling frequency, particularly during contests, and call CQ > Satellite, and mention that they are on the satellite during the QSO, then > the impact of having the AO-7 uplink close to the 432.1 weak signal calling > frequency can be minimized. > > > I just noticed a few days ago that the AO-7 entry on wikipedia is 100% > > wrong on this and needs to be corrected. Maybe someone more familiar with > > wikipedia than I will do so after seeing this email. > > The Wikipedia entry is pretty much a verbatim quote of the AMSAT satellite > summary on the AMSAT page and cites it as a source, which makes sense, so > changing the information I quoted above on the AMSAT summary is a good start > on getting it changed on Wikipedia. When the citation goes away the Wikipedia > entry will have less value. I don't contribute to Wikipedia, but I can learn > how to change this if that is what is warranted. It won't help much to change > the secondary source, Wikipedia, when the primary source, AMSAT, remains > unchanged though. > > Again Drew, thanks for your comments on this issue. I have revised my > thinking on Oscar 7 control. - Duffey > -- > KK6MC > James Duffey > Cedar Crest NM > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sent via [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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
