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

dream your own sat
by rupert red 05 Jul '09

05 Jul '09

Hallo all... from a while I'm hearing about MANY different and interesting satellite solutions... LEO, MEO, HEO, GEO... MOON !!! The problem is only ONE ! Amateur radio community has no money for this project, and will never have! Amsat & Co will never be able to collect millions.... I red on this bb that hams has no money for an expensive ground station... then how can they send many money to Amsat? Public and private organizations all over the world have not an high consideration of hams, and will never invest founds for them. The conclusion is only ONE... we will never see a new oscar satellite in the sky (at least some student's cube). Let's all dream together guys. Best 73 Rupert _________________________________________________________________ Condividi e organizza le tue immagini con Windows Live Foto. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/photos.aspx

3 2

Subject: Re: Antenna Question
by Mike Ryan 05 Jul '09

05 Jul '09

Hello all, Now that I was remionded to look, my qhtenna units came with a 1 page assemby instructions and drawing that includes lengths of rods and phasing harness. I'd be glad to scan/post it somewhere if anyone wants it. Mike WB1AAT ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:45:22 +0000 From: Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel(a)ngunn.net> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Antenna Question To: George Henry <ka3hsw(a)att.net> Cc: amsat bb <amsat-bb(a)amsat.org>, Jim Jerzycke <kq6ea(a)pacbell.net> Message-ID: <4A4FBF62.3090406(a)ngunn.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed I would suggest that you don't need a phasing line if the dipoles are spaces a quarter wave and that both are fed by equal length cables. George Henry wrote: > Looking at the pictures, it appears that the dipoles are separated by about > 1/4 wave in free space, which is physically longer than a 1/4 wave phasing > line would be. And I'd think that the phasing line would have to be 1/2 > wavelength, after introducing a 1/4 wave offset between the dipoles, > correct?

2 1

ILN... Is this our future ride to the moon?
by Armando Mercado 05 Jul '09

05 Jul '09

Greetings, The International Lunar Network appears to be the unmanned landers NASA is planning to put on the moon. The program is working to put 2 landers on the moon in the 2012-2014 time frame. Here are some excerpts from a Request for Information by NASA regarding instruments for its International Lunar Network (ILN). Pay special note to the mass and power limits. Is this what we are talking about putting a transponder on? 73, Armando, N8IGJ ****** Date Released: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 Source: Goddard Space Flight Center NASA Solicitation: Instruments for U.S. International Lunar Network (ILN) Lunar Missions Description of Anticipated Requirement NASA expects to emplace the first two nodes (the "anchor" nodes) of the ILN in the 2012-2014 timeframe with two additional nodes to be emplaced roughly two years later, depending on funds availability. All nodes will carry identical core instrument payloads. The ILN mission requires long lived instruments which can be operated as a network for six years (the anchor nodes will necessarily have to last longer). It is anticipated that a very small amount of power will be available to enable continuous operation through the lunar night. Concept studies for the spacecraft are now under development at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center working with the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) of The Johns Hopkins University. The mission will be tightly constrained in both mass and power. It is expected that the total available mass for all payload instruments will be approximately 15 kg, although the precise mass available for the payload will depend on the launch vehicle and other trades still being considered. The total available payload power will be approximately 15 W. The total budget for the ILN anchor nodes including development and operations is $200M. Schedule and budget constraints require that NASA mission planners focus on relatively mature instruments. ****** See the following links for more info: http://www.moontoday.net/news/viewsr.html?pid=29834 (The full Request for Information) http://iln.arc.nasa.gov/welcome (General info on ILN) http://lunarscience.arc.nasa.gov/file_download/26/ILN+Final+Report.pdf (Detailed info on ILN... Note: large file 13MB) Happy reading, Armando, N8IGJ

1 0

Molinya
by John Hackett 05 Jul '09

05 Jul '09

David, My use of the word Molniya was ambiguous. I should !!! have emphisised *LEO* elliptical. Let me explain ... The word Molinya in Russian means (literally) 'lightning' but in a space context it is accepted to mean ELLIPTICAL ... as per their TV satellite orbits which are in English dialogue would be classified as *HIGHLY* elliptical. The planned space station is envisaged in a 70 degree LEO orbit. I apologise for my misleading remarks. 73 John. <la2qaa(a)amsat.org> From: G0MRF(a)aol.com Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 11:32:56 -0400 Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] An alternative ... or ... competition !!!. To: la2qaa(a)amsat.org In a message dated 05/07/2009 15:17:02 GMT Standard Time, archie.hackett(a)hotmail.com writes: The new Russian station is *NOT* intended to be a laboratory like the ISS but more of an in-orbit contruction platform for future Mars-like and outer space missions. The station will comprise a maintainable 'ball' section with several docking ports with attachable modules. I propose that amateur radio satellite operators get together and form a group to suggest/try to influence/impliment an ARISS type of project for this space station. A Strela type frame could be attached to the underside of the 'ball' and since the station is planned for a Molinya type orbit the coverage would be suitable for DX. Hi John. Just wondering.... Is a Molinya orbit highly elliptical ?? If so, then it cant really go above 1000km high or the crew will get zapped by the protons in the lower van Allen belt. Thanks David

1 0

Hi to the 13 Original 13 Colonies - Motherland Calling !!
by Jim Heck 05 Jul '09

05 Jul '09

HI Folks, About 36 hours ago, I had an excellent QSO with Tim, N3TL via FO-29 on SSB. We had about a two minute window, so we did't have much time for rag chewing!!! According to my investigations, there are only a few orbits of FO-29 (my favorite satellite at present, and I think the only one high enough to reach many of the Eastern States). One of them occurs in about 12 hours, at 0044 (UTC) 5 July. Bearing in mind Tim is in quite far south, it should be possible for addition States to be worked from here. Please note that I can only do SSB (CW is far to rusty, I'm sorry to say) If anyone in the 13 States would like to make a sked for this orbit of FO-29, please email me off list at g3wgm(a)amsat.org 73s, and Happy Holidays! Jim G3WGM

1 0

An alternative ... or ... competition !!!.
by John Hackett 05 Jul '09

05 Jul '09

Ladies and Gentlemen, For those that don't know it, The chief of RosKosmos, the Russian Space Agency *confirmed* last week the Russian intention to pull the plug on the ISS in the 2015 - 2020 timeframe and to construct another dedicated Russian space station. According to Anatoly Zak RosKosmos informed NASA of these plans 14 days ago. The new Russian station is *NOT* intended to be a laboratory like the ISS but more of an in-orbit contruction platform for future Mars-like and outer space missions. The station will comprise a maintainable 'ball' section with several docking ports with attachable modules. I propose that amateur radio satellite operators get together and form a group to suggest/try to influence/impliment an ARISS type of project for this space station. A Strela type frame could be attached to the underside of the 'ball' and since the station is planned for a Molinya type orbit the coverage would be suitable for DX. The planned orbit would put the station predominently over Russia - as opposed to the current ISS equatorial orbit. Personally, I would suggest an RS-10/11 RS-12/13 clone with a ROBOT ... (read: propagation tester) - as these satellites were without the shadow of a doubt the best for recruiting newcomers. It would, in my opinion, be a viable concept and an alternative to some of the latest 'ideas' of a transponder on the moon ... which wouldn't 'catch' many potential newcomers but would (*IN MY OPINION*) only serve a few dedicated 'experts' ... leading to the demise of amateur satellite communications in general. Comments, monies and praise to LA2QAA. Criticisms, horsewhipping and flaming to GM1SXX. 73 John. <la2qaa(a)amsat.org> Interested parties may read the following ... ................................................................................................................ The OPSEK project By 2008, the Russian successor to the International Space Station, ISS, was identified as Orbitalniy Pilotiruemyi Eksperimentalniy Kompleks, OPSEK, or Orbital Manned Assembly and Experiment Complex in English.* Unlike previous designs of Mir, Mir-2 and the ISS, the heart of the station would be a four-ton ball-shaped node module. Equipped with six docking ports, this relatively small and simple element would be the only permanent element of the station. All other modules would come and go as their lifespan and mission requires. The initial architecture of the OPSEK complex could be built out of modules originally planned for the Russian segment of the ISS. The exact scenario of the OPSEK assembly would depend on the end of the ISS and the readiness of the latest Russian modules. According to a 2008 scenario, the MLM multipurpose module, the node module and a pair of NEM power platforms could be first launched to the ISS in 2011, 2013 and 2014-2015, respectively. With the deorbiting of the ISS looming around 2020, these modules could separate from the old outpost to form the core of the new Russian station. Another, more controversial scenario considered the separation of the practically entire Russian segment, including the MIM-2 docking compartment and the Zvezda service module, prior to the ISS deorbiting. In this case, the 20-year-old service module would temporarily take a responsibility for the flight control of the OPSEK, until its replacement with a 40-ton versatile core module, UMB, launched by a next-generation rocket from yet-to-be built launch site in Vostochny during 2020s. The separation of the Russian segment from the ISS would leave the rest of the outpost without effective orbital maneuvering capabilities, leaving the European ATV spacecraft as a likely candidate to perform the tasks of attitude control and deorbiting. To achieve this the ATV would have to be modified to enable its docking with the US segment of the ISS. Depending on the operational orbit selected for the OPSEK, it might be necessary to change the orbital inclination of the modules departing the ISS and forming the new station. The lowest inclination accessible from Vostochny is 51.7 degrees, while the ISS is orbiting the Earth with the inclination 51.6 degrees toward the Equator. It is estimated that one or two Progress cargo ships would be necessary to push the modules from one inclination to another. From official statements during 2008 and 2009, it is clear that the one of the chief objectives of the OPSEK complex would be the support for expedition to Mars. All major elements of the Martian expeditionary complex, such as main habitation module, Mars lander and nuclear-powered space tug would dock to the station before its departure from the low-Earth orbit toward Mars. The Martian expedition would at the OPSEK as well. The station would also play a similar role in lunar exploration. Reusable space tugs could link OPSEK with the Lunar Orbital Station, LOS, in orbit around the Moon, thus creating a transport chain for a permanent lunar base. Such tasks as servicing of modular satellites by orbital tugs based at the OPSEK complex were also cited. In broader terms, TsNIIMash research institute, a chief strategist of the Russian space agency, formulated the OPSEK concept as a foundation of the nation's space strategy. By 2009, the new station was seen as a cornerstone of a new space exploration plan, which extended four decades into the 21st century. An ambitious program apparently included manned missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond. (344) Cooperation with Europe and the US In 2008, Russian plans for maintaining presence in the low-Earth orbit in general and the creation of a successor to the ISS in particular had been met enthusiastically in Europe. As ESA had little hope to match the US effort to return to the Moon at the beginning of the 21st century, preserving a destination in the low-Earth orbit seemed critical for the political support of the manned space flight on the continent. In June 2009, Simonetta Di Pippo, ESA director of human space flight told the editor of RussianSpaceWeb.com that she shared the Russian vision of the future space station as a platform for deep space missions. "I have continuous consultations with officials in Russia. We meet every month, month and a half, and now we are going to start jointly, the study how to proceed beyond 2025, Di Pippo said, ..."and we have a common idea that we would like to preserve presence in the lower orbit. We are studying different scenarios, whether we need permanent presence or, maybe, a human-tended capability, and we can end up with a totally different solution in the end, but I don’t believe we can leave Earth orbit." Di Pippo also said that although current NASA plans for return to the Moon reserved no essential role for the station, it could change in the future. "Even on the NASA side, they have too many different developments (associated with the Earth orbit), including commercial involvement, which they can not immediately give up," Di Pippo said. By the end of 2010, all partners in the ISS project were expecting to agree on the extension of the ISS lifespan from 2015 to 2020 or even 2025. Once end of life for the ISS was decided an active planning for post-ISS manned space flight could begin in Russia, Europe and possibly the US.

1 0

More Future Thoughts
by Jeff Davis 05 Jul '09

05 Jul '09

It's interesting to watch how the desperation to have assets in high orbit has driven the ideas ever more grandiose here on the old -BB. We've moved from putting a "simple" transponder (as if there were such a thing) 35,000 miles over our head to landing a repeater a quarter million miles away on the Moon and using robotic rovers to lay directional antennas along the lunar surface... What's next, a Jovian constellation of amateur satellites? This is almost directly the result of having added the "government" into the fictional scenario. Whenever a new idea starts with, "maybe we can get the government to give us a ride..." then what follows can be as ostentatious as we like because of the perception that the government can afford to do really BIG things. And we invariably try to justify that they should want to do this because of "emergency communication". It would seem to be more constructive to substitute the words "big magical genie" in your plans everywhere you use the word "government" or "NASA". That way when you write, "if we could just get a big magical genie to give us a ride to the Moon..." the reality will sink in and it probably won't seem like such a grand idea before it sees the light of day. We need to disabuse ourselves of the ridiculous notion that the government is anxious and willing to stuff our pockets with cash just because "when all else fails". Need we be reminded that we're in the midst of the worst global economic recession since the great depression? Tax revenues are low while debt is unbelievably high. Politicians may be stupid but they're going to easily sniff out the nonsense of spending millions of dollars so a few hundred radio hams can enjoy their high-tech hobby. (And who really wants them to do that anyway? What would be your reaction if you read the news tomorrow that the government was going to spend $20 million tax dollars to help promote Frisbee golf, coin collecting, or some other hobby?) When life gives you lemons you make lemonade. We can't get to HEO, so what can we do? I think our best option is to create a lot more interesting things to do at LEO since we know we can get there; but let's make sure we aren't leaving a stone un-turned. What about other orbits that may not be as desirable as HEO but that offer better coverage than low-earth? I recall reading something from G0RMF about adapting a CubeSat to include some sort of a propulsion system to get to a mid-Earth orbit: http://g0mrf.com/MEOSAT.htm I have no idea if this is viable, but it seems to me that if we want to place assets higher than LEO these are the kinds of ideas we should be kicking around on the BB and perhaps leave the moon base installation ideas for AMSAT members in 2050 to figure out how to make work and to fund. -- 73 de Jeff, KE9V AMSAT-NA AMSAT-DL

4 4

Been A While
by jbblack68＠gmail.com 05 Jul '09

05 Jul '09

It's been quite a while since I have been on this BB. I got out of the hobby for about four years but I am working my way back in. I used to be KS4AW then K2SAT. Now I'm W4JBB. I don't even know if some of the folks who were involved in AMSAT are even still around. I do searches on their webpages and either get nothing or no updates in years - I don't dive past the first search results page. These are a few I remember: K5OE K6YK KF4FDJ N7SFI N8DEU WB6LLO There were many others too. I am getting my equipment slowly out of storage (I have it stored all over the house apparently). I had a FODtrack interface and found a partial build of the G6LVB tracker. I cannot remember if I finished the LVB tracker or not. I have a cutout for and LCD display, but no display in it. My dad has my '847, but he's not using it and I'll get it back in the next week. I left my tower up with my 2m/70cm antennas and the G5400 rotor. Feedline is still there too... partially. I guess my only question about gear is what should I use for auto-tracking with a Vista box? Like I said, I *had* a FODtrack interface, but I cannot find it. I also have a partially built LVB tracker. I have a parallel PCI card I can install in the Vista machine but I wonder if anyone has had any luck with that setup... I'm not opposed to booting up into Linux either. I have looked at the AMSAT homepage and there is only a small fraction of satellites still available. I have renewed my membership and am really looking forward to getting back on the birds. I think I have rambled enough. 73, Joel, W4JBB

3 2

The Moon is our Future / antennas
by G0MRF＠aol.com 05 Jul '09

05 Jul '09

In a message dated 03/07/2009 20:46:44 GMT Standard Time, kd6ozh(a)comcast.net writes: Building a prototype that works on Earth for project like this is only a few percent of the effort required. Treating it as a radio club project won't be effective as people need to sign up for a 5-year project. Hi all. John is absolutely right in saying the complexity cannot be easily compared to a terrestrial radio project. One other thing that stands an almost zero chance of succeeding is a dish antenna that needs to point towards the earth. If NASA and the ISS have trouble with moving parts on the solar array you can imagine how much more difficult it would be on the moon. However, how about this. The problem with the higher bands is power generation / path loss / antenna gain. Any higher band like 1.2, 2.4 or 5.8G would need a high gain antenna to offset the increased path loss. But, instead of a conventional steerable dish....with its unreliable moving joints...How about an electrically steerable array of patches / dipoles / or any other type of antenna element. But how to 'point' it? Well. actually I think Tom Clark provided the answer for that with his proposal of a few years ago. The principle is this: If you have 2 arrays. One say on 5.6G uplink and one on 5.8G downlink, then the receiving array can electrically look in different directions for a signal from the Earth. Once the receiver has identified a signal and optimised the RX Antenna, the information on the direction of the Earth i.e. the direction of the strongest incoming signal can be used to configure the transmit array which will then beam a signal back to earth with high ERP. Directional, high gain, and no moving parts. Thanks David G0MRF

6 5

controller and Rotator help
by myles landstein 05 Jul '09

05 Jul '09

Hoping to get some real world advice from those that are using MacDoppler and a compatible Rotor /Controller set up as this will be my first time getting a rotator and controller. I wanted to solicit some advice on two fronts, the rotor controller basically for ease of use with MacDoppler and rotor reliability. My first thoughts were towards a Yaesu 5500 and maybe the PrimeTec controller or maybe the LVB tracker as it's less costly. I read a few reviews but not much was out there in general but especially on the PrimeTec... What are you using as a controller? would appreciate any comparisons pro's cons tips tricks you might have My biggest concern really is the Rotator. I am in a situation such that after installation, getting back to the roof for repairs would be rather difficult. So i am trying to identify the 'best' small/moderate sized rotator (az/el) as possible /practical. Will be turning a small M2 2m and 440 circular pol beam Not really sure how reliable the 5500 is for long term use. so if there was a 'better' more reliable and or longer lasting rotor out there i'd strongly consider it The only thing I thought of as a alternative was the AlphaSpid but comparing reviews I seem to come out about the same between it and the 5500 Since this is all new stuff and I am not finding the usual quality 'google' results /reviews I would greatly appreciate any help or experience /advice on this from someone that went down this road already and willing to share some first hand info. thanks very much grateful for any advice. Going to Dayton '10 It will get better with more support! Myles D Landstein N2EHG myles.landstein(a)gmail.com

2 2