At 07:59 AM 6/28/2011, jerry wrote: >I can see it now , USA Today headlines " Ham operator successfully >passes ARRL RadioGram over Orbiting Satellite" . > As much trouble and time it takes to pass a message over much > more controlled frequiencies , I could not imagine trying to pass a > formatted message over a satellite , therefore rendering a sat as > useless for handling emergency traffic. > And I still say a net control type format would allow for many > more contacts on field day than just QRZ. > >Jerry WB5LHD >_______________________________________________ >Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. 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
Jerry, Exactly why I stated that, in my opinion, digital comms is the practical mode for satellite emcomm. Voice Net would be for brief "real-time messages" e.g. "we need a node set up in location blank"; "the hospital needs a generator", "send a helicopter we have x number injured", "my car is stuck and the water is rising", "the fire cut off our escape route, help!" ... No 30+ word formal messages on voice. Digital packet or APRS can be much more efficient and accurate. Typically, voice is local VHF/UHF simplex (when all else fails). Satellite for longer range coordination links which currently are managed on HF. 73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45 ====================================== BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com EME: 50-1.1kw?, 144-1.4kw, 432-100w, 1296-60w, 3400-? DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubus...@gmail.com ====================================== _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. 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
