October 2009 - AMSAT-BB - mailman.amsat.org

Congrats to Sumbadilisat team!
by Mark L. Hammond 19 Oct '09

19 Oct '09

Wow, glad to learn of the first QSOs on Sumbadilisat! It must be hugely rewarding to make those first contacts. Bravo to AMSAT-SA! 73, -- Mark L. Hammond [N8MH]

1 0

I: Trouble Adding Satellite to DOPPLER.SQF
by Francesco Grappi 19 Oct '09

19 Oct '09

Hi David, you must have the same "satellite name" on file DOPPLER.SQF and kepler file (amateur.txt) 73 Frank IW4DVZ > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: amsat-bb-bounces(a)amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] Per > conto di David Wing > Inviato: lunedì 19 ottobre 2009 18.21 > A: 'Amsat-BB' > Oggetto: [amsat-bb] Trouble Adding Satellite to DOPPLER.SQF > > Not sure what I'm doing wrong but I can't seem to get SUMBDILA > frequency > information added into SatPC32. The satellite recently showed up on my > satellite list the last time I updated my keps but there was no > frequency > information. > > I've updated the DOPPLER.SQF with the following: > > SUMBDILA,435350,145880,FM,FM,NOR,0,0 > > I inserted this in the middle of the file (just after the AO-51 > entries), > saved the file, restarted SatPC32 and still did not see the frequency > info > when I selected the satellite and went to the CAT Tuning window. > > I rebooted the PC and had the same results...no frequency info appears > in > the CAT Tuning window > > It seems pretty straightforward to add this to the file but I must be > doing > something wrong. > > Currently running a registered copy of v.12.8 > > 73 > David > K6CDW > > > _______________________________________________ > Sent via AMSAT-BB(a)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

1 0

Quite an update about Sumbandilasat...
by Andrew Glasbrenner 19 Oct '09

19 Oct '09

posted at http://sumbandilamission.blogspot.com/ . Congratulations to the SA-AMSAT team! 73, Drew KO4MA

4 4

Re: ITAR is interesting to me
by k0vty＠juno.com 19 Oct '09

19 Oct '09

Hi Bob (N4HY) Thanks for taking the time to ponder for the BB and me some of the twists and turns of ITAR issues. I hope the BB apprecaites your time and effort. Here are a few more questions? 8.) How do exclusionary zones with in the US work as in the AO-40 integration and shipping zone, as it relates to ITAR? 9.) How does Amsat-NA insure ITAR security among it's own engineering staff? 10.) Does the German Government have ITAR like laws for the AMSAT-DL folks to follow? 11.) Are there any ITAR shipping limitation involved as to methods and ports? Global is getting to mean many things it would appear. Thanks you sir, when you get more spare time . Regards Joe Murray K0VTY On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:18:52 -0400 Bob McGwier <rwmcgwier(a)gmail.com> writes: > k0vty(a)juno.com wrote: > > Greetings All: > > > > The Amsat BB is a great source of information we all know: > > I have a few questions about ITAR that I thought might interest > more than > > I. > > I tried to be careful of the words I used. > > > > 1.) Do all launched satellites that have US components or > interests fall > > under ITAR? > > > Yes > > 2.) When does ITAR interest begin for a launchable Amateur > satellite? > > > The minute you wish to discuss what is in it with someone who is not > a > US national or want to ship the thing overseas for launch. > > 3.) Is software and firmware that is a part of a Amateur satellite > at > > launch fall under ITAR? > > > Most definitely > > 4.) Who normally handles University Cube Sat ITAR issues when > Amateur > > frequencies are used? > > > Depends on who is going to do the launch but Cal Poly has been > involved > for sure. > > 5.) Who normally handles US Military school Cube-Sat ITAR issues > when > > Amateur frequencies are use ? > > > U.S. government entities have a form of an exemption because they > are a > component of the U.S. government (and not a for profit company which > > might be tempted to sell intellectual property to the highest > bidder) > and those equities are handled differently. Even then, ITAR only > comes > into play if non-U.S. citizens are involved in the program and/or an > > overseas launch is envisioned. > > 6.) When is there no ITAR interest in a Amateur satellite? > > > There is interest. That is what is causing us so much grief. It > has > effectively ended the participation of AMSAT-NA in Phase 3E. > > 7.) Did Suitsat one or two (ARISSaT-1) have any ITAR problems > since they > > are satellites > > using Amateur frequency? > > > NASA is able to work through different channels than AMSAT has to in > > order to get things launched to the space station. AMSAT-NA will be > > responsible for ALL transfer of components for ARISSat 1 to the > launch > site. We might get assistance from some places in the government > but it > will be handled as an export request and we will have to show how > we > will protect the equities that need protecting under ITAR. > > > > I have more ITAR related questions. > > > > Best Regards > > > > Joe K0VTY > > ==================== > > > > ANY aspect dealing with a satellite, software, hardware, ground > stations > (hardware, software, protocols, etc.), ideas, random ejaculations > from a > diseased mind or whatever that deals with spacecraft or ground > stations > are DEEMED EXPORTS when they depart a U.S. citizen and are delivered > to > a non-U.S. citizen. It is a nearly impossible task to abide by and > one > that really makes me want to throw my hands up in despair and walk > away. > > There are exceptions for classrooms and courses taught in U.S. > university's. A person, even a non-U.S. citizen, who can pay for > taking > a course, may go and involve themselves in course work, even if it > is > dealing with the design, construction, and control of spacecraft > during > the course work. Some of this applies to your earlier questions but > for > US service academies, there are very few non-U.S. citizens in > them. > > Bob > N4HY > > > > -- > (Co)Author: DttSP, Quiktrak, PowerSDR, GnuRadio > Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, > NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. > "You don't need to see the whole staircase, just > take the first step.", MLK. > Twitter:rwmcgwier > Active: Facebook,Myspace,LinkedIn > > > > ____________________________________________________________ Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTMerseM6huiwDg7vZAreaZevO…

5 6

Re: THE DMSP launch
by Ken Ernandes 19 Oct '09

19 Oct '09

Dan - Great points - especially #4 !!! 73, Ken Ernandes N2WWD -----Original Message----- >From: Daniel Schultz <n8fgv(a)usa.net> >Sent: Oct 18, 2009 11:51 PM >To: amsat-bb(a)amsat.org >Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: THE DMSP launch > >Someone wrote: > >>as I recall there were 50 some odd pounds of ballast launched with the >bird...to >>bad it wasnt an amateur repeater. > >>to bad we didnt have something to use that excess performance...they flew >>ballast on the flight > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > >Why would they fly ballast on their rocket when they could have flown a ham >satellite? > >1. Ballast does not need to be tested for Electromagnetic Compatibility or >contamination of the primary payload. The Interface Control Document for a >block of concrete can be exceedingly simple, with no need to pay a room full >of engineers to review it for completeness and accuracy. > >2. Ballast does not need to have a separation interface tested and qualified, >there is no chance of it coming loose inside the payload shroud during >liftoff. > >3. Ballast is certain to be ready in time for the launch date, without >bringing another organization into the mix. There is no need to conduct a >crash engineering program to design a satellite structure that will fit on the >Atlas and then test and certify the satellite for compliance with the Atlas >vibration and acoustic specifications. > >4. Ballast does not have an e-mail group full of whining little people who >think they could have designed it better or that it operates on the wrong band >or mode, and complaining loudly when the mission falls months or years behind >its original launch date. > >If you were the Colonel in charge of the mission, you could not make a safer >choice than launching a block of concrete ballast. A ham satellite is just a >lot of additional risk and headache with no possible gain for you or your >future career. > >Somewhere in the world there may be an officer who is willing to take that >risk. That is how Oscar-1 was launched in 1961. The challenge is to find that >person and nurture a relationship with him or her. If they are reading the >comments on Amsat-BB they are probably thinking "there is no way I would ever >want to have a relationship with that wacky organization" > >Dan Schultz N8FGV > > > >_______________________________________________ >Sent via AMSAT-BB(a)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

1 0

Re: THE DMSP launch
by Ken Ernandes 19 Oct '09

19 Oct '09

Dan - Great points - especially #4 !!! 73, Ken Ernandes N2WWD -----Original Message----- >From: Daniel Schultz <n8fgv(a)usa.net> >Sent: Oct 18, 2009 11:51 PM >To: amsat-bb(a)amsat.org >Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: THE DMSP launch > >Someone wrote: > >>as I recall there were 50 some odd pounds of ballast launched with the >bird...to >>bad it wasnt an amateur repeater. > >>to bad we didnt have something to use that excess performance...they flew >>ballast on the flight > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > >Why would they fly ballast on their rocket when they could have flown a ham >satellite? > >1. Ballast does not need to be tested for Electromagnetic Compatibility or >contamination of the primary payload. The Interface Control Document for a >block of concrete can be exceedingly simple, with no need to pay a room full >of engineers to review it for completeness and accuracy. > >2. Ballast does not need to have a separation interface tested and qualified, >there is no chance of it coming loose inside the payload shroud during >liftoff. > >3. Ballast is certain to be ready in time for the launch date, without >bringing another organization into the mix. There is no need to conduct a >crash engineering program to design a satellite structure that will fit on the >Atlas and then test and certify the satellite for compliance with the Atlas >vibration and acoustic specifications. > >4. Ballast does not have an e-mail group full of whining little people who >think they could have designed it better or that it operates on the wrong band >or mode, and complaining loudly when the mission falls months or years behind >its original launch date. > >If you were the Colonel in charge of the mission, you could not make a safer >choice than launching a block of concrete ballast. A ham satellite is just a >lot of additional risk and headache with no possible gain for you or your >future career. > >Somewhere in the world there may be an officer who is willing to take that >risk. That is how Oscar-1 was launched in 1961. The challenge is to find that >person and nurture a relationship with him or her. If they are reading the >comments on Amsat-BB they are probably thinking "there is no way I would ever >want to have a relationship with that wacky organization" > >Dan Schultz N8FGV > > > >_______________________________________________ >Sent via AMSAT-BB(a)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

1 0

Re: ao7 hand held ants//amsat listening
by paul robinson 19 Oct '09

19 Oct '09

Hi guys thanks for responding and i fully understand whats involved....but from a sat opp point of view it would be nice if we could manage one bird like a07 ...that is its hight? and transponder ever 25 years? or so...?? and not have to rely on 25 year old tech...that works and works well...im a big beleaver ...keep it simple it works and lasts Thanks for all ur hard work and im sure im not alone in saying keep up the good work and lets hope a ride comes along to for fill our needs..so we can keep this great part of the hobby on going! de paul ......raining in scotland

1 0

Cheap CP 2.4 ghz antenna?
by Greg D. 19 Oct '09

19 Oct '09

Hi folks, So I have a pair of 14 dbi flat panel "Wi-Fi" antennas, complete with pigtail and N connector. I assume they're linearly polarized. Satellite downlinks really ought to be circular, if possible. For satellite use, could I simply mount the two on my Az/El rotor boom, with one rotated 90-degrees from the other, and with a 1.23 inch shim behind it (for the 1/4 wave offset, if I did the math right), then combine the two antennas with a simple "T" connector? The impedance would be wrong, but for Rx only, probably irrelevant. I'd be feeding it into a Kuhne preamp, and from there to the Drake downconverter. As a receive setup for the likes of AO-40, this probably wouldn't be all that good. My 30" screened BBQ Grill with helix feed, after all, was barely up to the job. But for AO-51's V/US mode, I'd think it would be fine, offer a whole lot less wind resistance, and weigh a whole lot less too. Since AO-51's 2.4 ghz antenna is linearly polarized, it probably doesn't matter whether the result is left-hand or right-hand polarized, so it doesn't matter that I forget which "hand" rule to use for figuring it out... I've also heard that these panel antennas may have great numerical gain, but also have a lot of loss (cheap PC board materials), so maybe this isn't too good of an idea. What do you think? Greg KO6TH _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/

2 1

Why do hamsats? (Or anything else...)
by Mark VandeWettering 19 Oct '09

19 Oct '09

I'll limit my comments to two issues: > Ham radio is about communicating. If we want to turn its primary task into > "education" then it will look very very different. Part 97.1 tells us what the intended (not always realized, it must be said) purpose of amateur radio is. it certainly is intended to be a communication service, but the regulations also recognize the importance of education in Part 97.1(c): (c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art. Education (particularly self-education) has always been a principle of amateur radio. Indeed, from 97.3(a)(4), the definition of amateur service: (4) Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest. It does list "intercommunication", but it also lists "self-training" and "technical investigations", which certainly have a clear educational mandate. I admit that most hams don't seem to take this educational mandate very seriously, but it is there, and I applaud AMSAT in their educational efforts. In the grand scheme of things, I think having school kids talk to astronauts in orbit probably does more social good than allowing hams work DX. Secondly, regarding the chances of success of ARISS-Sat-1, first, I hope you are wrong. I hope it is successful, and that the SDX transponder provides some unique opportunities for radio amateurs. As to whether flying such a payload is a reasonable use of this rare launch opportunity, I think it clearly is. Yes, we could kick a very basic linear transponder out of the ISS, and it would float around in LEO and allow you to make some contacts, but so what? What purpose would be served? To get to _affordable_ amateur satellites, we have to find a way to actually pay for launches. This means (among other things) limiting mass, and that means relying on the benefits that digital control can in controlling and minimizing power consumption. You can't just run a bent pipe transponder on a 1U cubesat and expect anything useful to develop. We need to think Robert also mentioned the decreasing satellite population. It isn't decreasing because satellites are becoming more expensive: indeed, as Bob Bruninga has pointed out, the actual hardware costs of satellites have fallen dramatically. The problem is that we can't get people to donate free launches to get our stuff into orbit. AO-10 had a mass of about 90kg. Arianspace wants 1.8 million euros to launch that into HEO orbit. The cost of the development and construction of the satellite is just the smallest fraction of that cost. To make satellite launches affordable, we need to figure out new ways to shrink the mass, provide careful power control, and either accept lower orbits or figure out new ways to boost satellites to higher orbits (I find the micropropulsion work to be very interesting). It's a pity we can't harness the power of complaining to boost things to orbit... 73 Mark K6HX

10 19

Tucson Hamfest
by Tom 19 Oct '09

19 Oct '09

It was my pleasure to meet both Patrick, WD9EWK, and Ed, N7EDK, at the Tucson Hamfest yesterday. My first eye-to-eye meeting with those whom I'd worked on the satellites. Tom, KØTW

1 0