[amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)
Thanks for this Dan. 73, Tim - N3TL From: Daniel Schultz n8...@usa.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 12:47:37 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal) The worldwide amateur radio community must interface with one unified voice to the various space agencies that form the ISS partnership. The ARISS organization, whatever its flaws may be, was created by the efforts of a lot of hard working hams in many countries to provide that interface. Without it ham radio would have no access to the manned space program, and as a child of the 1960's who grew up with the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions, I am thrilled that we hams have such access. I could easily imagine a world where this was not allowed. The fact that we are able to launch anything to the ISS, given the astronomical value of every kilogram of payload mass on the Progress or the Shuttle, and every minute of astronaut and cosmonaut time on orbit, is truly amazing. The recent complaints on the BB remind me of the hams who bash the ARRL without understanding that without the ARRL, amateur radio would have been abolished long ago by the powers that be. We hams need to understand that whatever disagreements exist between us are not nearly as serious as the external threats to our amateur radio avocation. Whatever your beef is, please work within the organization to make it better, and not tear it down in public view. Writing “open letters” addressed to the world’s space agencies is not helpful to this effort or to your fellow hams. Moving on another amsat-bb thread, AO-40 was designed and built to take advantage of what turned out to be a once in a lifetime opportunity to launch a very large amateur payload into geosynchronous transfer orbit. Had we chosen not to build it, I can imagine lots of people complaining on amsat-bb about how Amsat management had dropped the ball and squandered an amazing launch opportunity. The presence of exotic transponders on AO-40 is not what caused its failure. The 24 GHz payload was contributed by an Amsat member organization and was built because they believed strongly enough in its value that they committed their effort and their funds to get it built. There were transponders on AO-40 to serve every interest, from VHF to UHF to S-band to millimeter wave. Hams MUST push their technical limits and explore new frontiers, it is one of the reasons amateur radio still exists. Critics cried about the complexity of the S-band downlink and then some clever hams took some cheap off the shelf TV down converters, made some slight mods to retune the input frequency, and got a lot of hams active with 2.4 GHz receive capability for very little money. I agree with the letter in this month's QST (September issue, page 24), suggesting that those who complain that the amateur radio has gotten too technical might better enjoy reading People Magazine instead. Dan Schultz N8FGV ___ Sent via amsat...@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 ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS, MM
Hi Miles, Thank you for this response - especially for the persoective it provides. As I mentioned in my last post, I was off the air and totally away from amateur radio for more than 15 years. As a result, I had no knowledge of how operations from Mir occurred. I appreciate having this information because it helps me to understand how things have progressed in terms of amateur communications with various manned orbiting stations. Because I haven't been active throughout the entire time frame, I can only draw on my personal experiences over the past 14 months when it comes to overall interest in communications with the ISS. I am having a tough time accepting the veracity of your statement that interest in communication with and through the ISS has diminished. I have made 116 voice contacts with and through the ISS since Richard's visit to the station last October. I and others have commented among ourselves at the significant number of calls we have heard only through the ISS voice repeater. I believe interest remains strong, and dare say that oportunities for two-way contacts are the reason. We are on different sides of the SSTV fence; and, of course, neither of us will change the other's mind about the relative merits of one mode over the other when there is only one radio station aboard the ISS for use in amateur communications. I cannot personally support the plans you propose because I do not believe they represent the most effective use of the communications gear available on the ISS. The kind of exchanges you described between the ISS and a ground station - both set up for SSTV - inevitably will decrease opportunities for two-way contacts because of the time each SSTV transmission consumes. Given its lower orbit and resulting smaller footprint, ISS passes are inherently the shortest-duration passes of all the amateur satellites we have available. SSTV represents the longest-duration mode of operation to and from the ISS in terms of completing a two-way contact - and a one-way transmission, as far as that goes. In that regard, it is the most inefficient mode available for use. I can't support proposals that advocate using what precious time is available for amateur radio communication via the ISS to enable a mode that inarguably decreases the opportunity for contacts, either among amateur ground stations (via the repeater) or among ground stations and the crews. I will continue to participate in ARISS activities regardless of their form. I would prefer that form not include significant SSTV activity for reasons I've stated here and in my earlier email. 73 to all, Tim - N3TL From: MM ka1...@yahoo.com To: amsat-bb@amsat.org; Tim Lilley n...@bellsouth.net Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 9:56:04 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS, MM Hi Tim: Thank you for your comments. I am always open to new ideas and I welcome your questions and observations. I plan on posting some suggestions on how to use the Existing Hardware on ISS to try to please as many hams and SWL as possible. We can’t make everyone happy. I feel there has been a loss of interest in ISS amateur Radio. Our ham projects over the past 10 years have not grabbed very much public or ham interest (with the exception of School Schedules). To restore interest in ISS we need to have more than 1 project running at a time. We also need projects that are exciting to a larger audience. If we continue to use our valuable launches to ISS for Short-term projects, then ISS will say a dull boring and wasted platform for amateur radio experimentation. The project that will generate the most positive press and public enthusiasm is SSTV. Of course I am going to push this project, not just because it’s a Marex project, but because of the great news stores we received during the Mir version of SSTV. SSTV will generate good Press and TV new clips. SSTV will generate interests from the SWL (and they out number ham by at least 10 to1) Mode Change to SSTV: I do not believe that switching from packet to SSTV would reduce the number of random public voice contacts. On the contrary, from my experience with previous Mir and ISS crews running SSTV, the number random public voice contacts increased. Commander Pavel Vinogradov in July August 2006 would be on Voice, asking “Did you seem my SSTV pictures”? During Richard Garriott’s Mission in October 2008, he used both Voce and SSTV. He was often interested in knowing how well people liked his images. He would have sent more images, however he had technical difficulties with the Vox box causing the TM-D700 too repeatedly get stuck transmitting. He also said there was a shortage of AA batteries for the Kenwood Communicator VCH1. In my experience with multiple SSTV crews, SSTV will increased your opportunity to talk to the crews on Voice. Ideally I would like to see SpaceCam1 SSTV activated for 3
[amsat-bb] Re: SS-2
Howie, I don't know all of the obstacles involved, but your suggestion is the best one I've heard during the course of the SuitSat-2 discussion this week. The trade-off, of course, will be a lower orbit/smaller footprint, with passes that are a couple of minutes shorter than those of the current FM LEO satellites. Here, I em definitely willing to accept that to have another amateur-communications platform with multiple operation modes go active with the probability that it would stay active for at least a few years. Thank you for this post. 73 to all, Tim - N3TL From: Howie DeFelice howied...@hotmail.com To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 10:33:17 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] SS-2 I agree with the Bobs and others that you have to play the cards you're dealt and be part of the solution. Allot of people put many hours of time, effort and their own money into AMSAT and I certainly thank them all. I disagree that we should abandon the HEO fetish as it was put. At the moment it seems unlikely there will ever be another AO-40 but there could be opportunities for ride shares to higher orbits. But for that to remain even a remote possibility, we need to be in the game. By continuing to be a visible member of the space community we enhance our chances of finding new opportunities for transport to space. We must continue to be flexible and adapt to whatever opportunity comes along. I think that is exactly where AMSAT has been moving. This may be a dum question but, since so much effort has gone into building SuitSat-2, why are we throwing it out the ISS door? It appears we have multiple unused antenna ports on the ISS. If we connected SS-2 to one of those it will stay in orbit a long time, we don't need to repackage it to survive space or put in batteries. I'm sure there would be a process to make that happen not to mention maybe install an antenna. Even if it took another year to make happen, wouldn't it be worth it? Howie AB2S _ Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCBpubl=WLHMTAGcrea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1 ___ Sent via amsat...@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 ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS
Amen ... to you and to Ben. Thanks to you both, Tim - N3TL From: Andrew Glasbrenner glasbren...@mindspring.com To: Ben Jackson b...@innismir.net; Rocky Jones orbit...@hotmail.com Cc: Amsat BB amsat-bb@amsat.org; n...@bellsouth.net Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 12:09:12 PM Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS Ben, well said! I think you'll find the same sentiments spreading across many of the BOD and officers over the last year or so. I expect the Symposium this year is where much will be explained. Launch costs are about 80 to 90% of a project, and in the case of the Suitsat2, practically 0%. We'd be foolish not to take that and run. 73, Drew KO4MA - Original Message - From: Ben Jackson b...@innismir.net To: Rocky Jones orbit...@hotmail.com Cc: Amsat BB amsat-bb@amsat.org; n...@bellsouth.net Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 12:02 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rocky Jones wrote: In my viewpoint the project is typical of what AMSAT NA has been doing lately, which is a lot of ground development work on making projects advanced all the while we rely on a satellite AO7 which we apparently cannot build a replacement for. I would wager that if SuitlessSat2 goes up (and I pray that it does) it will have much more use then AO-7 in the same time period. SuitSat was a major PR success for AMSAT and ARISS. More then a few hacker/maker podcasts/radio shows I listened to plugged the project and amateur radio which you don't see that much. I would say that if SSTV was put into the ISS, it would not receive the same coverage. The perfect is the enemy of the good. While it would be great if we had a ride for an HEO sat, an ability to get a higher-orbit LEO sat, and, while we're at it, everyone a pony and a puppy, it isn't going to happen. Lets focus on what we can do rather then bog ourselves down in something that we might be able to do if we are lucky. - -- Ben Jackson - N1WBV - New Bedford, MA bbj at innismir.net - http://www.innismir.net/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJKjsT+AAoJEAQiWVsfSvVvMmAH/2ahSeIXsk9ISvzvLWoumFpB waVRl8/EEPZbUNjeo655xAIcMpuhDAkdZg+FOOEKzu7AWotUEuvcgdbDMmjAp2+r O63bhn4cmHDkka74bPNcQJYei+ZYYwP1fVDodzXgl2hoJG9EYWnkOce+jAeEuUEe e5z2vmehe8VYeaWhnywMbtKJZaj2IyWO0zvZWNhDxtuj1ve59i8M7yJzGgzbBIOV JTPDZP/x8A7qxQ23U3XU0TeJzY7K5+teXGMqvZfiawkqQq29/blLPfcrt4uVCaDj HE7V+N72bvxDl8XcZyBtAlEqRSF2debXEWIWK+4XoS83FmI5AA0ACE8wzJlAulc= =vjqP -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Sent via amsat...@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 ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: FT897
Hey Randy, I use an FT-857 here, which is - for the most part - the same radio without the provision of an internal battery pack. It is not full-duplex-capable, so you'll need a separate receive radio. here, I use an FT-817ND. In terms of computer control, the programs I've tried (Ham Radio Deluxe and its satellite tracker module, SatPC 32 and Orbitron with the WISP DDE plugin) treat the 817 and the 857 the same. I suspect that the CAT design is identical for the 817/857/897, or close enough that software sees the same thing with each radio. I like the 857 a lot, and there were 4-5 897s at the combined Field Day effort I provided the satellite station for this year. Those radios' owners had nothing but good things to say about them, but none of them had tried satellite work. As I said, it's not full-fuplex-capable, so a separate receive radio will be necessary for full-duplex operation. I hope that helps. 73, Tim - N3TL From: Randy rswa...@twcny.rr.com To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 7:02:46 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] FT897 What do you all think of using a Yaesu FT-897 for satellite work? Randy - N2CUA ___ Sent via amsat...@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 ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS
Mr. Mann and all, I’m not sure I have a dog in this hunt, but I am an AMSAT member and enthusiastic user of the amateur satellites and the ISS amateur station. Before responding specifically to your most recent post, I would like to ask anyAMSAT Board of Directors candidate who reads this to weigh in on your ideas over the next few days because I have not cast my ballot yet, and I’d like to hear candidates’ thoughts so I can make a more-informed voting decision. Now … on to my response to your most recent post. I find myself believing your reasoning and arguments to be self-serving because last October, I heard Richard Garriott’s side of a conversation with you during his stay on the ISS, when it was apparent that you used precious time available for other amateurs to make contact with Richard to ask whether you could transmit SSTV images to the ISS. Nowhere in the multiple posts you have made over the past week have you addressed the impact of your SSTV proposal(s) on the existing U/V voice repeater and/or the VHF packet station on the ISS. I presume that, since you propose (in this post I’m responding to) only replacing/upgrading hardware necessary to make the existing SSTV system operational, that its time on the air will mean no packet station and no opportunity for voice contacts, either with the crew or with other amateurs via the repeater. We all have our interests and preferences. Mine, as it relates to the use of the amateur radio gear aboard the ISS, is two-way communication with other amateurs – including ISS crew members and private citizens who are licensed amateurs and who visit the ISS. As is the case with SSTV transmissions, those who choose to do so can use ground stations as you described to monitor voice communications, and (as you pointed out with SSTV) free software is available to anyone for use in setting up a sound-card-based TNC to copy and decode packet radio from the ISS. From here, as a result, you seem to be advocating a trade-off in operational modes with an eye toward increasing SSTV operation using the existing gear. So unless I’m missing something, your recent post argues only for a mode change, not an increase in operating opportunities. Further, if that is, indeed, the case, then the biggest bang for the buck – it seems to me, at least – would be to not spend any money and encourage ARISS members to work with the appropriate officials in the various space agencies to take advantage of remaining voice and packet opportunities. Of course, that won’t bring SSTV back to the ISS station. But it also won’t cost a dime moving forward. Free makes for the biggest bang (i.e., no bucks involved). Like you, I would like to see a new satellite with SSTV, FM-crossband-repeater and V/U SSB transponders placed into a higher orbit. More than a few times, since hearing about China’s plans for the XW-1 satellite, I have found myself thinking how cool it would be for a satellite with its capabilities to be placed in an AO-7-like (or even slightly higher) orbit. In that regard, I don’t disagree with arguments that suggest finding some way to make whatever form SuitSat-2 ultimately takes stay in orbit and remain active as long as possible. BUT (there’s always a but… hihi) I don’t see the wisdom in scrapping plans to place another satellite with multiple-mode capabilities in operation – regardless of the duration – just to get the ISS station running SSTV again – especially when the station is fully capable of providing two-way voice and packet contacts in its current form. In a previous post, you provided other options for ARISS projects, in addition to repair of the gear necessary to operate SSTV with the current station. Two days ago, the following statements appeared in the same post from you: “The longest it required from Theory to Switch-on from Mir for any project was 15 months. “With ISS it does take longer. The average time is (ouch) 4-7 years. “The ISS laptop project required 9 years. “The SpaceCam1 project, from Beta software demo to switch on was 7 years.” And “We have 5-6 years left of ISS. We need to make the best of what little time we have left.” Unless I’m missing something, and if the numbers you state in each section of your Aug. 18 post are accurate, it appears to me as though there’s no guarantee there will be enough time to achieve anything you advocate because, as I understand it from your posts, these proposals would pretty much start from scratch in moving through the system from proposal to delivery to the ISS and activation. I am a relative newcomer to “space radio,” having made my first-ever satellite contact on June 28, 2008. That being said, I believe that an AMSAT decision to abandon SuitSat-2 so that it could focus on getting the necessary hardware to the ISS to add SSTV to the currently operating station would be a distinct disservice to the AMSAT membership and the
[amsat-bb] Re: Best working freq SO-50
Here, I do not change the transmit frequency from 145.850, with the 67.0 Hz PL tone (or 74.4 Hz to arm the timer). I do not use computer controlled Doppler tuning for SO-50 or the other two FM satellites. My experience is that computer controlled Doppler is not necessary on the FM satellites, which is why so many operators introduce themselves to satellite operation on these FM satellites with a handheld station. I begin with my RX fruquency at 436.805and tune down from there through the pass in 5 kHz increments, ending at 436.785 by LOS. SO-50 is difficult to work for two reasons, in my opinion: 1 - Its power level is a nominal 250 milliwatts (.25 watt). 2 - It is transmitting that quarter-watt into a 0-gain quarter-wave vertical mounted on one corner of the satellite. This truly is the QRPp space-radio station! There is a very good chance that you are doing nothing wrong. I encourage you, however, to try working a pass without Doppler control. Let your ears guide you for the Doppler tuning, based on the relative noise level as the pass unfolds, and park your uplink at 145.850. The very best of luck. Please let us know how you progress. 73, Tim - N3Tl Athens, Ga. - EM84ha From: PE0SAT pe0...@vgnet.nl To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 12:48:34 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Best working freq SO-50 Hi, Thanks for reading, what is the best working freq. for SO-50. I tryed 145.850 - 436.795, 145.855 - 436.800 but it is not working for me. I use HRD Satellite tracking together with a Yaesu FT-847 and this is the only bird that experience as difficult to work. And Yes, I am transmitting the CTCSS tone 67hz and use the 74.4 to arm the timer. Anybody that can help me? 73's PE0SAT ___ Sent via amsat...@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 ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas
Rafael and all, I wasn't going to go here because I have before - and there's no need for a handheld antenna conflict here on the BB. However, I have to add that as someone who used an Arrow out of the box extensively - including to earn Satellite VUCC all handheld - I will add to your statement that my Elk antenna hears better than my Arrow ever did - nominally 4 degrees lower than the Arrow at AOS and LOS for any satellite I work. When I got the Elk, my testing included eliminating the Arrow duplexer altogether and using equally short runs of coax to my transmit radio and receive radio because I don't own a full-duplex-capable radio. I routinely run a 2-radio full-duplex operation here. The Elk still heard satellites at AOS sooner, provided equivalent receive quality through the pass and heard satellites longer at LOS than the Arrow (either with or without the duplexer). I'll echo the sentiments expressed here. The Arrow does work, and work well. My experiences with it, however, suggest that the Elk works better - especially on the receive side, which is the most critical side of satellite communications. My work on AO-7 into Europe, Africa and Alaska would not have been possible with the Arrow because the elevation angles involved were lower than I was ever able to hear any satellite with it. I should note that I am using the same radios and coax with the Elk (i.e., the same as I used with the Arrow), but include a Diamond duplexer because of my need to connect two radios to the Elk, which is a dual-band antenna with a single feed point. I also know operators who have not shared my experiences with the Elk. Ray at Elk and Allen at Arrow will have to forgive me for this, but I suppose that antenna manufacturing is like virtually every other form of manufacturing - for whatever the reasons, with all processes and materials appearing to be identical - there are some really good examples and some not-so-good examples that come off the line. Maybe I got a good Elk and used it to replace and Arrow that wasn't so good as others. I can only speak to my experiences with the two antennas and use examples of my own personal operation with each, which I'll share with anyone who cares to email me off the BB. Like I said - there's no need for a handheld antenna conflict here. I would, howeveer, like to see the Elk get the credit due it for being an outstanding antenna that is less expensive than the Arrow, smaller than the Arrow (and so even easier to pack and transport - I know because I've done it with both antennas) and nominally rated for higher power. 73 to all, Tim - N3TL Athens, Ga. - EM84ha From: Rafael Valdez G. rafaval...@hotmail.com To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 3:30:28 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas Does Arrow antenna needs more endoresement than these two??? I personally like Elk for its less bulky design but Arrow is definetely a winner 73 Rafael Valdez Jr. XE2RV @ DM41mh 10-10 52716 VUCC Sat #164 http://sat-xe.blogspot.com EX-XE2PWF P Before printing, please think about your responsibility and commitment with the ENVIRONMENT. Antes de Imprimir, piensa entu responsabilidad y compromiso con el MEDIO AMBIENTE To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:12:19 -0800 From: k...@juno.com Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas AMEN ! I have used my Arrow right out of the box (bag), with a store-bought duplexer and it works great! No mods necessary. Thousands of QSO's on my trips around the country on AO-27, UO-14, SO-50, etc. I note that many of the messages I see on this subject are from people I've never heard on any satellite. Strange. 73 John K6YK SAT VUCC #10, 800+ grids confirmed SAT WAS #200 - Forwarded message -- From: RONALD CADE w6zq_ To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:28:43 -0700 Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arrow Antennas Gentlemen, If you want to see some improvement from the Arrow antenna, leave it's physical dimensions alone and remove the diplexer in the handle, throw it away and replace it with one of my designs. I won't get into any of the design details however having a device with adjustable capacitors and wire wound inductors makes a world of difference. I have been using this antenna since it arrived on the market with great success. Most of my activity has been in California, Arizona and the Hawaiian Islands. I would not take any other antenna with me on my trips away from home. As Clint mentioned, there is a significant difference in the signal strength from the sats as I have to rotate my antenna at least 45 degrees during a pass. Ron, W6ZQ SAT VUCC #99, 500+ grids confirmed SAT WAS Arrow + Icom ICw32 Click here for fast, safe, easy money transfers.
[amsat-bb] Re: Antenna pointing
John and all, I mean no disrespect, and I'll apologize now if what follows offends you or anyone. I agree - to a point - about pointing accuracy. Let's face it - of the three FM satellites currently available to us, SO-50 is the largest target we have. It is a 35mm (13.78-inch) cube. We're shooting signals at it from hundreds of miles away, so even the most accurate of pointing likely is a little of dead-center ... hihi. That fact notiwthstanding, however, I remain convinced that each individual station has its own sensitivity to pointing accuracy relative to effective communications. Stations running relatively high power levels and well-calibrated motorized antenna systems likely can be less accurate and still be effective. I don't believe I and others enjoy that luxury when we set out to work the satellites on handheld stations running lower power levels - in some cases, much lower power levels. The International Space Station provides at least a partial illustration. Here, I don't worry about Doppler tuning with the ISS because (1) it's orbit is lower (thus, it's closer) and (2) its radio runs significantly more power than any of our other smateur satellites. Even at a low power setting of 5 watts out, it is 20x more powerful than SO-50 and 10x more powerful than AO-27. I don't have to be as careful with pointing or Doppler tuning to enjoy a good experience on an ISS pass. Not so when trying to capture and keep, for example, AO-27's half-watt signal. Before I started working the amateur satellites about 14 months ago, I had spent several years enjoying visible passes of the ISS whenever I could. As I learned of the available amateur satellites and decided to give them a try with a handheld station, it became apparent to me very quickly that my practice on the ISS would be helpful. I use a compass to match AOS/mid-pass/LOS positions with known landmarks here, and then I visualize how a satellite will arc across the sky relative to my location on a given pass. I believe that has improved my pointing accuracy significantly, and I further believe that accuracy makes a difference at times in whether I make a successful contact. This morning on AO-51, I made contacts with KB1RVT in Maine and WA3SWJ in Maryland. Those contacts provided the 29th and 30th states I have worked on the FM satellites using my Yaesu VX-7R HT set at 50 milliwatts (.05-watt) output. I have used either an Arrow dual-band yagi or my current Elk dual-band log periodic to make all of those flea power contacts. I don't believe any would have been possible without pointing and tracking that is as accurate as I can make it, given my hand-holding and manual tracking. That being said, I believe your creation of an antenna bore sight is an outstandning idea - one that will help anyone improve the effectiveness of stations using tower/mast-mounted antennas with motorized Az/El rotation systems. Congratulations on that, and thank you for sharing it with the BB. 73 to all, Tim - N3TL Athens, Ga. - EM84ha From: john heath g7...@btinternet.com To: amsat amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:16:33 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Antenna pointing Hi, I agree with the comments that high degrees of pointing accuracy are not required for satellite work. However, if you are super keen to improve your pointing accuracy then you may like to consider the modern version of the bore sight method. A bore sight is basically a length of tube, you look through, you only get a view of the target when you are accuratly lined up with it. The longer the tube the greater the pointing accuracy. For an antenna boom mounted bore sight I used about six inches of 15mm copper water pipe with a stop end soldered onto it. I drilled a 1/8 hole in the stop end and fixed a light dependant resistor in the eye end Attached to the boom and ran wires to the shack where I had a battery and voltmeter. Point your antenna at where the Sun should be then hunt backwards and forwards, up and down until you see a peak reading on the meter = the sun. Its a bit of work but the benefit of this method is that its on the tower and you can check it anytime the Sun is out. Practical problems, waterproofing and true alignment to the boom. It was a lot of work but a fun project, eventially destroyed by water penetration. 73 John G7HIA ___ Sent via amsat...@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 ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: satellite WAS #309
Congratulations Patrick! That is a wonderful achievement - one that way fewer than the 308 before have accomplished (i.e., Satellite WAS on the LEO satellites). Thanks, too, for all your work to activate grids in your part of the world. Many of us appreciate it very much. 73, Tim - N3TL From: Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK) amsat...@wd9ewk.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:37:04 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] satellite WAS #309 Hi! After over 3 1/2 years working the satellites, getting on the air for around 6000 satellite QSOs followed by requesting QSL cards from stations across the USA, I was able to complete one of my goals when I started on the satellites - work and confirm QSOs with all 50 US states. I had my applications and cards for the satellite Worked All States award reviewed here in Phoenix a couple of weeks ago, and the certificate arrived today. :-) Out here in the western part of North America, it is possible to work all 50 states with the existing group of LEO satellites we have. In fact, it can be done with just the FM satellites from out here if there are stations on from each of the states. My application used QSL cards from contacts only on the 3 FM satellites (AO-27, AO-51, SO-50). There is no special endorsement for doing that; the WAS certificate has OSCAR to identify this as a satellite WAS, along with the serial number for this version of the WAS (#309) and the date it was issued (last Thursday, 6 August). I wanted to use cards from only the FM-satellite QSOs, as that was one of the two goals I wanted to do when I started out in late 2005 (the other thing was to get QSL cards from at least 100 grids, for the satellite VUCC award). I'll use many of the same cards toward the AMSAT Sexagesimal award (confirming contacts with at least 60 US states/Canadian provinces/DXCC countries), and then do the bigger task of assembling a satellite VUCC application (I'm somewhere between 250 and 300 grids confirmed). Or I can go back on the radio, and leave that paperwork for some other time. :-) In any event, thanks to all the stations over 3 1/2 years that got on the air from the different states - and for sending those QSL cards to confirm the contacts. 73! Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK http://www.wd9ewk.net/ ___ Sent via amsat...@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 ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Satellite WAS
Congratulations, Frank! I was off the air totally from 1992 until 2007, although I kept my license current. I didn't discover the satellites until about 15 months ago, and it's the most fun operating I've ever done. My approach is different than many, but the old QRPer in me likes it this way very much. It's not the best solution, but with AO-7 still providing us with a decent footprint and other satellites to work, there's no real reason that 910 has to collect dust. I hope to hear you on one of the satellites sometime. Again, congratulations. Thanks a bunch for this post. 73, Tim - N3TL Athens, Ga. - EM84ha From: Frank A Cahoy k0...@juno.com To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 8:46:38 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Satellite WAS Hello All, It's been a very long time since I've posted to the BB. All the recent discussion about Satellite WAS has given me a chance to do some bragging. My first ever satellite QSO was on RS-12, Mode K, Jan. 29th, 1994. It was on CW with WA6OWM and one of the greatest thrills of my ham radio adventures. It took me about nine more months to complete my WAS. Believe it or not my last state worked/confirmed was KY! I had both AK and HI long before the elusive KY QSO. My RS-12 Elmer was Roger, N4ZC, who to my knowledge is the only station to ever achieve DXCC on a LEO bird. When the conditions were really good we could cheat a bit on RS-12. It was quite easy to work that bird when it was well below the horizon. I have DXCC entities such as SM, OK and JW (Actually in the footprint but for only about 3 or 4 minits.) confirmed on RS-12. I often heard this bird when it was well below the horizon and have received emails from several Europeans that tell me I was being heard but not hearing those that were calling me. My Satellite WAS no. 211 is dated Oct. 17, 1994. All 50 were worked via RS-12. I have been licensed since June, 1960 but the Satellite WAS Award is the only WAS I've ever applied for. Now I cannot even work the LEO birds. I've taken my AO-40 earth station completely down and put a 4 element 6 m. Yagi up in its place. As stated several times on this BB in the past, I am a DXer (115 DXCC via satellite and 368 DXCC alltime via HF.) and trying to work any DX at all on the LEO birds is more of a challenge than this OM has left. It would appear that there is no hope of getting an HEO up anytime in the near future so hence the move to 6 m. All of my station is safely stored away and I don't plan on selling any of it just in case we do actually experience a miracle launch. Most painful is seeing the ICOM 910 sit and gather dust and used to work, very occasionally, the local 2 m. repeater. 73 to all. Frank, KØBLT See the difference a digital projector can make. Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTMWJBShejJ9vXsnmVagzoXxomilCZK3VJX1KemMX2oOMelf5LEAus/ ___ Sent via amsat...@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 ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: Acer Aspire One SatPC32
\Jim, I know I responded to you off the BB, but it occurs to me that I should post a response to the reflector. I'm not having any symptoms at all when using SatPC 32 with the Acer. The combination works very well to provide Doppler tuning for my two radios. I have never tried using computer Doppler control on only one radio. I haven't worked AO-7, FO-29 or VO-52 in half duplex I notice another poster responded with information about getting SatPC 32 to talk to his Icom rig. Since I've been using Yaesu radios here, I can'tcomment on that at all. I have no experience with interfacing any non-Yaesu radio with any of the available satellite programs. Simon has done a marvelous job with his HRD suite of software, and I enjoy using it very much. I would like to have fully separate access to Satellite Tracker because I suspect that could cure the processor overload I experience with the Acer. I may be wrong, but I'd sure like to test the theory. 73 to all, Tim - N3TL Athens, Ga. - EM84ha From: clar...@aol.com clar...@aol.com To: n...@bellsouth.net Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Friday, August 7, 2009 7:08:15 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Acer Aspire One SatPC32 Hi Tim, I'm curious about what symptoms you're experiencing with your Aspire One, which I'm also using. ? In my case, during the short time I had available?to use SatPC32 with mine netbook just before leaving the country, I found that the Doppler corrections from the program were slow in keeping up with what the satellites were actually doing. That is, once I had a station tuned in on the 70cm freq, the?corrections would kick in at the right intervals as I'd set them, but the corrected?downlink freq would soon be off a bit following the next correction. (The downlink freq displayed on SatPC32 matched what the rig's display showed, so the rig and program are talking fine.) With each correction applied, the disparity between the new downlink freq and what I?was actually hearing would quickly widen. Soon, I would have to manually re-tune the station again to clarify the signal; the uplink?seemed to follow my hands on?changes though, so that seemed to be a functional band aid. There's one issue on my end that may figure in. My FT-817ND is at Yaesu for a warranty repair, so I'm currently limited to half duplex only with my FT-897D. With that single-rig config, I can't use a rapid correction interval because the rig switches VFOs at the specified intervals (currently set at 50 cycles), and I lose my RX capability for a noticable amount of time, say about a half second each time. The VFO switches become more frequent as the bird passes overhead of course, so it's a trade off. I've been stuck in Bahrain for the better part of a week while waiting for the military hop that goes to Diego Garcia where my ship is located. My rig is on the ship waiting for me, so it'll be a few days?before I can try anything new. With luck, my 817 will be shipped to me while I'm at VQ9 and I'll be able to go full duplex with a much faster Doppler interval setting. 73 for now, Jim, ND9M / VQ9JC Manama, Bahrain -Original Message- From: amsat-bb-requ...@amsat.org To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 6:34 am Subject: AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 4, Issue 387 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:21:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Tim Lilley n...@bellsouth.net Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: HRD software question To: david.bar...@dbelectronics.co.uk, Simon \(HB9DRV\) si...@hb9drv.ch Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org Message-ID: 484785.88782...@web180213.mail.gq1.yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Simon, ? I will be thrilled if you are able to get the Doppler-tuning function to work with stability on a netbook with an Intel Atom processor driving an 8.9-inch screen (the one built in to my Acer Aspire One). :) ? Tim - N3TL --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Simon (HB9DRV) si...@hb9drv.ch wrote: From: Simon (HB9DRV) si...@hb9drv.ch Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: HRD software question To: david.bar...@dbelectronics.co.uk Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 2:47 PM Well, When I get to this stage I will offer to help anyone using teamview - I did this yesterday with a beta-tester in Holland and in just a few minutes found a serious resource leak. The main problem with netbooks is the graphics chip isn't too fast, but I do have some poor code in the satellite tracking anyway :) My general aim is to be able to run HRD 5.0 on a netbook driving a 24 display. Simon Brown, HB9DRV www.ham-radio-deluxe.com - Original Message - From: David Barber david.bar...@dbelectronics.co.uk That's excellent news, most encouraging.? Wish I was able to do more to assist. ___ Sent via amsat...@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
[amsat-bb] Re: HRD software question
Simon, I will be thrilled if you are able to get the Doppler-tuning function to work with stability on a netbook with an Intel Atom processor driving an 8.9-inch screen (the one built in to my Acer Aspire One). :) Tim - N3TL --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Simon (HB9DRV) si...@hb9drv.ch wrote: From: Simon (HB9DRV) si...@hb9drv.ch Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: HRD software question To: david.bar...@dbelectronics.co.uk Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 2:47 PM Well, When I get to this stage I will offer to help anyone using teamview - I did this yesterday with a beta-tester in Holland and in just a few minutes found a serious resource leak. The main problem with netbooks is the graphics chip isn't too fast, but I do have some poor code in the satellite tracking anyway :) My general aim is to be able to run HRD 5.0 on a netbook driving a 24 display. Simon Brown, HB9DRV www.ham-radio-deluxe.com - Original Message - From: David Barber david.bar...@dbelectronics.co.uk That's excellent news, most encouraging. Wish I was able to do more to assist. ___ Sent via amsat...@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 ___ Sent via amsat...@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
