Email Detail
Show an email
GET /hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/KIOH5QPVT4HR7BUNBL5QCYS37GHRLDDY/
{ "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/KIOH5QPVT4HR7BUNBL5QCYS37GHRLDDY/", "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/", "message_id": "001001c6d2f1$3a0b53d0$2900a8c0@N3HKQ", "message_id_hash": "KIOH5QPVT4HR7BUNBL5QCYS37GHRLDDY", "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/5UP2H4GKM4KWEIIO6TNPLR2IPHXTTP52/", "sender": { "address": "kevin.j.smith (a) comcast.net", "mailman_id": null, "emails": null }, "sender_name": "Kevin J. Smith", "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: S band and Eagle: an appeal for a higher\tleveldiscussion", "date": "2006-09-08T02:48:11Z", "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/KN34PYYAXXTBI42BBHKYF2AIB3MGQIPT/", "children": [], "votes": { "likes": 0, "dislikes": 0, "status": "neutral" }, "content": "If one looks at the bb archive in late July you will see a string titled\n\"This Weekend in Minneapolis: Central States VHF Society Meeting\". The\nsubject of not having an S-band downlink on Eagle was thoroughly discussed\nby the likes of Bob McGwier, Tom Clarke, and Jim Sanford among others all\nbefore ballots for BOD's were due. You may not like the conclusions drawn\nfrom the previous discussion but the subject of not having an S-band\ndownlink on Eagle is not new to this bulletin board.\n\nKevin Smith\nN3HKQ\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On\nBehalf Of Eric H Christensen\nSent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 8:24 PM\nTo: [email protected]\nSubject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band and Eagle: an appeal for a higher\nleveldiscussion\n\nBruce,\nWhile you bring up some good points in your message I feel there are\nquestions that remain in need of answering.\n\nThe first question that I have is where is all this data that was used\nto produce such a theory of S-band pollution being too great for a HEO?\n I've seen data that I agree with that says that S-band uplinks would\nessentially be deaf on a HEO due to the rise in the noise floor from all\nof the non-licensed networks and such but that noise floor comes from\nmillions of such devices. One would never have to put up with that much\ninterference at their home stations. Until I see research data that\nsupports such a theory I cannot possibly stand behind such a decision to\ncripple our next satellite.\n\nWhy should we buy a product that doesn't meet our needs and wants? I\ncertainly wouldn't go out and purchase anything just because someone\nelse wanted me to. My hard earned money goes into the products that\nfulfill my wants, needs, and desires. With S-band going away, and\nanother project possibly being scrubbed as well, I'm seriously\nconsidering throwing my support and money towards the P3E project which\nhas an outstanding lineup of experimental bands along with the more\ntraditional ones on board.\n\nToo bad this information didn't come out earlier as I'm sure it would\nhave been a great discussion piece for those that were running for Board\npositions. I wonder how many Board members would support the decision\nof taking S-band off the future birds. Members of the Board should take\nnote and realize that their time is coming to end with these kind of\ndecisions being made. We pay the money to support AMSAT now where is\ntheir support back to us?\n\nEric KF4OTN\n\n\n\nBruce Robertson wrote:\n> There has been a recent restatement of disappointment regarding the Eagle\n> design committee's recent choice to use S band as an uplink not a\ndownlink.\n> Note that the next two HEO's scheduled to launch *will* have S band\n> downlinks, so there's no worry that people like I, who live in radio quiet\n> areas, will be unable to use our developing S band equipment in the\nfuture.\n> \n> As I understand it, the Eagle design team have used standard predictions\nof\n> 801.11 usage to determine mathematically that by the time of launch the\n> radio environment will simply not support reliable communications. I\ncannot\n> imagine that they like these conclusions. Implementing new bands entails\n> new risks, after all. But numbers don't lie (or shouldn't), and it would\nbe\n> a horrible disservice to all of us if they designed and launched a bird\n> that was effectively mute at launch.\n> \n> The design team have said again and again on this list that they would\n> welcome contradicting evidence that is cogent, and I, for one, believe\n> them. They're our volunteers, and they deserve our support. I can't\nprovide\n> that contradicting evidence: I'm not skilled or qualified. But I can\nassess\n> an argument, and the responses so far have not been nearly as rigorous. \n> They have amounted to \"works for me\", which I think misses the point. \n> \n> Please, please, those of you who are qualified and competent and hold the\n> opposing opinion, take the design committee at their word and assess their\n> work, check their assumptions, present cogent opposing arguments. There is\n> some thought that a dish antenna properly implemented will overcome the\n> obstacles described by the design team. Let's model this. Or those who\nlive\n> in heavy 802.11b environments, do some experiements with terrestrial links\n> (which I suppose could be assumed worse than earth/sky). Who knows? Maybe\n> it's all like my last tax return, where a missed decimal point made me\n> think I'd have to take out a second mortgage to pay our taxes :-) This\nlist\n> and the wiki exist so that we can undertake that sort of dialogue, and for\n> my part, it is my favorite part of participation in AMSAT.\n> \n> Some have suggested that Eagle fly with an S-band downlink on the off\n> chance that it *does* work despite the theory; others, that we survey the\n> members to see what they'd like. I fully support the design teams\nrejection\n> of the former approach. Launch weight is very expensive and the kitchen\n> sink approach is not to my mind sensible. As to the latter, a survey\n> presumably pertains only to *working* bands, not ones that are polluted\nout\n> of existance.\n> \n> It's human nature for us more readily to see our misfortunes as caused by\n> the malace of others, but I think we should strongly avoid terms like\n\"bait\n> and switch\". We'll get much further if we all assume the goodwill of\n> everyone involved. \n> \n> 73, Bruce\n> VE9QRP\n> _______________________________________________\n> Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.\n> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!\n> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb\n> \n> \n> \n\n_______________________________________________\nSent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.\nNot an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!\nSubscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb\n\n\n", "attachments": [] }