Email Detail
Show an email
GET /hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/UPK4RTUGRHTRVDPDYXKITZDIFRCLMXOK/?format=api
{ "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/UPK4RTUGRHTRVDPDYXKITZDIFRCLMXOK/?format=api", "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api", "message_id": "003c01c6dc1b$3f2c8db0$0b0a0a0a@RICK", "message_id_hash": "UPK4RTUGRHTRVDPDYXKITZDIFRCLMXOK", "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/UPK4RTUGRHTRVDPDYXKITZDIFRCLMXOK/?format=api", "sender": { "address": "w2gps (a) cnssys.com", "mailman_id": "5948a5f4b4c343b5ae370965ac0fc1c2", "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/5948a5f4b4c343b5ae370965ac0fc1c2/emails/?format=api" }, "sender_name": "Rick Hambly (W2GPS)", "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: Why do the amsats get more and more complex?", "date": "2006-09-19T18:41:40Z", "parent": null, "children": [ "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/OFLMO3ME5RKPQJFW2KXAQ3CHXQRR5COR/?format=api" ], "votes": { "likes": 0, "dislikes": 0, "status": "neutral" }, "content": "Jason,\n\nI can easily imagine how you may have come to the conclusion by listening to\nsome people on amsat-bb that satellites are becoming bigger, more complex\nand more expensive while not providing you with better services. You might\neven think that AMSAT officials are not listening. Nothing could be further\nfrom the truth.\n\nP3E is designed to provide services similar to AO-13 in an effort to make it\nsmaller, cheaper and simpler than AO-40. It also will carry experiments\nessential to the future P5A mission to Mars. This is a very reasonable\nincrease in complexity for a good purpose.\n\nEagle is intended to be a series of satellites. Eagle has been designed to\nbe smaller, lighter and cheaper than AO-40. Its shape was designed to\noptimize a low inclination orbit like the one AO-40 attained. This\nunintended orbit turned out to be very attractive to many users and it\nprovides for orbit stability and much less propulsion, further reducing\nmission risk. It also carries fewer payloads and these payloads have been\nspecifically chosen to get the best performance for the maximum number of\nusers.\n\nBoth P3E and Eagle have chosen Software Defined Transponders (SDXs) to\nimplement the \"linear transponder\" functions for many reasons. Among these\nare efficiency, stability, linearity, cost, in-flight performance\nimprovement, the ability to simultaneously share the transponder with other\nmodes (Packet, APRS, SMS are possible examples), and the ability to change\nperformance parameters in flight. This choice does not make the satellite\nbigger, more expensive, or less useful, etc. In fact, it is just the\nopposite.\n\nEagle will carry a payload that it is hoped will revolutionize Amateur\nSatellite communications and Ham Radio as a whole. Initially called C-C\nRider, I will call it the Advanced Communications Package (ACP) because it\nno longer uses C-band for both uplink and downlink. This package will be\ndesigned to bring satellites and DX to you and to many other Hams who have\nnever been able to use a satellite or operate DX before. This is because\nthe ground station antenna will be small, power levels reasonable, many\nmodes will be supported (from Voice and CW to Video and data\ncommunications), the ground station will be affordable and the signal\nquality will be superior. Much of this is accomplished through the use of\ndigital techniques so it will require all new equipment on the ground. AMSAT\nwill design the ground station equipment and publish everything so you can\nbuy it, copy it, sell it, or build it.\n\nThe Eagle band plan has been the subject of much discussion, of late. Eagle\nis still in the design phase and the band plan is not finalized, so don't\nworry just yet. The confusion was the result of the ACP (C-C Rider) team\nrealizing that they had to find another band for the uplink. They chose\nS-band for some good reasons but that recommendation is under review by the\nwhole Eagle team and is not yet final. There should be a final announcement\nat the AMSAT Symposium in a few weeks. I encourage everyone to come to the\nSymposium and meet your AMSAT officials and learn what is really happening\nin AMSAT. \n\nThere is much more I could say but, in summary, the new satellites are\ngetting better in every way compared to the old ones. The future is bright\nand we need your support and involvement to achieve these goals.\n\nRick\nW2GPS\nAMSAT President\n \nSubject: [amsat-bb] Why do the amsats get more and more complex? \nFrom: Jason White <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> \nDate: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:48:44 -0400 \n\n----------------------------------------------------------\n\nThis is intended to be an honest question that I've wanted to ask, but I\ndon't want to spark controversy or long threads that monopolize the\nreflector. I have a feeling this could go either way, so I'm just asking\npolitely that the thread not go that way! It's not my intent.\n\nAnyway, I'm just curious why it seems that every new satellite project\nproposed seems to be bigger and more complex than the last? I keep hearing\nabout exotic modes and uplink/downlink bands for P3E. Software defined\ntransceivers, etc. etc. and what it looks like to me are more and more\nfailure points. I understand the need to push the limits of technology as a\njustification for our very existence, but personally I feel like the designs\nare overly complicated and highly priced. I'm not ready to switch my earth\nstation to SDRs, for instance.. I'm dubious about putting one into orbit..\nthen again, I'm not skilled enough to make those sorts of decisions.\n\nWhat I'm getting at is that Oscar 7 proved how reliable older technology can\nbe.. For the price of one of the phase 3 birds it seems like several Mode B\nlinear transponder sats could be put up, or a few more FM sats. I personally\nwould much rather see a modest mode B sat in AO-40s intended orbital pattern\nthan to try to wrangle parts for microwave.\n\nDid it get too easy for people or something?\n\nWouldn't it be better to separate out some of the more experimental stuff\nfrom the old standbys? That way a failure of one whole sat would still leave\nsomething usable for the same money spent. My vote would be to piggyback a\ncompletely independent analog satellite onto P3E \"just in case\".\n\nLike I said, please, I'm looking for a real, thought out response. I didn't\nwrite the above to be a critique or to troll or anything like that, I am\njust curious because it seems to me, as an outside observer, that after the\nfailure of AO-40 the direction was to go bigger and even more complicated,\nwhich left me cold considering what I had done at my station to work AO-40.\nEven when AO-40 was up I felt it was very odd that time and money were spent\non components and systems that were never used (did the solar panels ever\ndeploy?) Yes, I know the sat was damaged, and that explains a good bit of\nit, but it still felt like some things were wasted. Emphasis on \"felt\".. I\ncouldn't know the real process that resulted in the decisions made.\n\nIf someone could help me understand why the direction is the way it is maybe\nI could get excited about the bigger sats, but I think you get more \"bang\nfor the buck\" with the smaller less complicated birds. My favorite so far is\nPCSat I. Mostly off the shelf hardware and I had a very easy time\ndigipeating APRS through it. One of those in an elliptical orbit would be a\nhoot!\n\n73s,\n\nJason - N1XBP\n\nP.S. - One last plea, this isn't a troll! I'm worried people will think it\nis.\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\n", "attachments": [] }