February 2011 - AMSAT-BB - mailman.amsat.org

Re: Considerate satellite operations behavior.
by wa4hfn＠comcast.net 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

This is and will be an ongoing problem until the powers to be at amsat do something about the mess on the FM birds . Tom you are preaching to the choir here because most of the offenders have no idea that this BBS is here. If the FCC stopped long enough to monitor this madness, they would likely have Amsat shut it down. BUT it is our job to police the ham bands.I guess that might mean we need to write down the bird,call sign ,date ,mode, and time and try to contact the offender and explain to the operator the trouble they are causing and offer them some advice on how to operate on the birds. Amsat wants users and needs members but this madness has to be corrected. I would not do a satallite demo any where and let people hear the mess that is ever present now and even worse on the weekends. Amsat needs to address this issue and offer a solution before the responsible operators givenup and quite dealing with the birds. Thats my 2 cents worth AGAIN WA4HFN Damon EM55 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Schuessler" <tjschuessler(a)verizon.net> To: amsat-bb(a)amsat.org Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 11:29:20 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Considerate satellite operations behavior. Hi all, I do not have the dollars yet to upgrade to an all mode radio to be able to do SSB/CW operations so FM is my lot for now. I love early mornings on AO-51 and later in the evening SO-50 and SO-67 when available because the roar of the crowd is significantly less. That being said, I like to give AO-51 or AO-27 a try once in a while in the afternoons to make a few Qs but find myself more often than not put off by the sheer mess found there. Only been doing this for 8 months with 260 QSOs on an irregular schedule so maybe I am out of line here, but I will throw out some observations anyway. The for me 2210Z 20-Feb, 2011 pass was a typical example of what makes this part of the hobby hard to promote. I know that many of you are conscientious operators and do not try stomp on others but there are some out there who just don't seem to understand that there is a proper way to do this that will maximize the number of QSOs that actually get completed on a given pass. I don't know how many times I heard someone call another station but when that second station answers, somebody else comes right on top and obliterates the poor guy with a totally unrelated call. I have had a station call me back only to have his exchange blown out of the water by somebody else who is apparently not listening to the fact that several seconds of an exchange has already occurred. I am sure I was the cause of some interference this afternoon attempting to jump in after an exchange to get my call out there. I try however, if it appears that I with my 5W handheld and Arrow, are not making it through the current pileup, will wait 3 or 4 minutes until the pass has progressed some and try it again. Yes I know it is FM and I should not expect better but honestly I know it can be. Several times I heard a weak voice that sounded like a youth trying to get in but nobody paused enough to give the poor kid a shot. I made three Qs that pass but the kid got none and probably walked away thinking he had just wasted his time. I will be at a hamfest in a few weeks and plan to do a few demonstrations of FM satellite work with my Arrow there and know that many folks will just wag their heads and decide to never try at all because of the noise and disorganization. Another issue I hear is stations calling but not apparently hearing anything but they continue to call anyway and cause interference. A recent SO-50 pass in the evening had 6 or seven stations calling but only one or two QSOs actually took place as nobody seemed to be listening to the right frequencies. I would request that the person who keeps up with the Satellite status pages on the AMSAT web site please post the reality the SO-50 downlink is really about 5Khz lower than the published 436.795. If that were really the case, than I should always be starting a pass on my handeld at 436.805 but if I go there, I hear nothing much and always end the pass way down at 436.780 instead of .785. Since we always recommend that new operators look to AMSAT.org for their basic information, it needs to be kept current. If the information is wrong then people have to go through the trial and error method to find out the truth. Hopefully these remarks will not offend but will serve to spur us all to improve the way we do things so others can too have a shot at making contacts. Tom Schuessler 2713 Lake Gardens Drive Irving, Texas 75060 972-986-7456 214-403-1464 (Cell) n5hyp(a)arrl.net _______________________________________________ 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

7 6

Re: LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts?
by Bill Dzurilla 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

Thanks, Patrick,, I have already sent an email to LOTW. If the other station failed to include Propagation Mode or Satellite Name, there should be no match at all. There is no basis for me to be credited with a 144mhz or 432 mhz grid. I spent a lot of time going through my log before uploading it, as LOTW demands perfection. The slightest error (e.g., writing vo-52 instead of VO-52, AO51 instead of AO-51) and the entry is rejected. 73, Bill NZ5N > > Most likely, the other station didn't include one or both > of the fields > used to mark a QSO as a satellite QSO (Propagation Mode, > Satellite > Name). I've seen this on a handful of QSOs I've > uploaded in the past > few weeks. > > > Anyone know how this is handled? > > Assuming your log has all the necessary fields for a > satellite QSO (all > of the QSLs I've gotten from you are showing as satellite > QSOs, so I > don't think your logs are missing anything), there is only > one way to fix > this - the other station has to upload the QSO record(s) > again, this time > making sure those additional ADIF fields are in their > log. As long as the > other QSO details like date, time, your call, etc. are the > same, the new > upload replaces what was originally uploaded. > > If the other station's log has the satellite-related > fields, then an e-mail to > lotw-help @ arrl.org is necessary. There could be > errors in how ARRL's > database queries run to match up QSO records and make > QSLs. ARRL > will not fix problems with other stations' log uploads, and > everything has > to be in there correctly in order to use the resulting QSLs > toward awards.

3 3

Re: LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts?
by Marvin Tamez 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

Bill, all of my matches, besides the 3 blanks, are coming back VUCC SAT. Maybe someone else can answer the why yours are coming back VUCC144 or 432?? Not sure where the imput error is, if there is one! Maybe the Propagation is being recorded as 144 or 432 enstead of "SAT" Sorry can't be of more help... Marvin ________________________________ From: Bill Dzurilla <billdz.geo(a)yahoo.com> To: Marvin Tamez <k5mlt(a)yahoo.com> Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 10:39:59 AM Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts? M, Are all of your matches coming back as VUCC Satellite? Or are some coming back incorrectly as VUCC 144 mhz? B --- On Mon, 2/21/11, Marvin Tamez <k5mlt(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >From: Marvin Tamez <k5mlt(a)yahoo.com> >Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts? >To: "Bill Dzurilla" <billdz.geo(a)yahoo.com> >Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 11:29 AM > > >Bill, you are correct, if my understanding is correct! LOTW is looking to match >QSO date, time, mode=144(uplink), Propagation=SAT, & SATname=AO-27, AO-51, >etc... I have uploaded 192 QSO's resulting in 41 QSL's of which 3 are blank in >the VUCC column. I've have not uploaded the QSO's between you and I. > > >73, >Marvin >K5MLT > > > > ________________________________ From: Bill Dzurilla <billdz.geo(a)yahoo.com> >To: amsat-bb(a)amsat.org >Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 8:36:43 AM >Subject: [amsat-bb] LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts? > >Hi, > >I just upload several hundred sat contacts to LOTW. Many matches were returned, >BUT many of them were credited for "VUCC 144 mhz" or "VUCC 432 mhz" and NOT for >"VUCC Satellite", which is how they should be credited. > >Does this mean that the person on the other side of the QSO did not properly >encode the log entry as a satellite QSO? Or is there some glitch in the LOTW >program? I would have guessed that, if I encoded the QSO as Satellite and the >guy on the other side did not, it would not show as a match at all. > >Anyone know how this is handled? > >73, Bill NZ5N > > > >_______________________________________________ >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

Elk as a Base Antenna
by Clint Bradford 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

>> ... used an Elk as a base station antenna ... I would use Blue LocTite on all element threads ... then probably use marine spar varnish on it all before mounting in a semi- or permanent outdoor situation. And, of course, have some manner to rotate it. Clint, K6LCS

3 2

FTM-350AR Question
by Zachary Beougher 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

Hi! Hopefully there are a few on this list that own one of the new Yaesu FTM-350ARs – I cannot find anyone that owns one of these! I picked one up yesterday, and after a frustrating evening and day trying to familiarize myself with a new radio, I think I got most of it figured out. I do have a question: On my TH-D7A, when I get digi’d, “My Packet” appears on the display. Is there some feature I can enable on the 350 that would give me a confirmation message/beep that my APRS packet has been digipeated? I get a brief beep about 1/2 second before it transmits, but after that there is no beep/message. Any tips? 73! Zack KD8KSN

3 2

Re: Elk
by n8gbu 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

I was wondering if anyone knows or has used an Elk as a base station antenna ? I have been kicking around the idea of using it they way as a first antenna for a base station. Something to try out and get the hang of things. Mike N8GBU

2 1

LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts?
by Bill Dzurilla 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

Hi, I just upload several hundred sat contacts to LOTW. Many matches were returned, BUT many of them were credited for "VUCC 144 mhz" or "VUCC 432 mhz" and NOT for "VUCC Satellite", which is how they should be credited. Does this mean that the person on the other side of the QSO did not properly encode the log entry as a satellite QSO? Or is there some glitch in the LOTW program? I would have guessed that, if I encoded the QSO as Satellite and the guy on the other side did not, it would not show as a match at all. Anyone know how this is handled? 73, Bill NZ5N

2 1

SA-AMSAT satellite to carry linear transponder
by Trevor . 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

http://www.southgatearc.org/news/february2011/kletskous.htm 73 Trevor M5AKA

3 2

ND9M/MM - Sat Ops
by Clary, James T, Civilian 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

I expect to be QRV on AO7 tomorrow morning at 21/1653Z and will try to be in the 145.950-955 range. CW will be the primary mode, but I should be able to switch to SSB if needed. My QTH should be in or near grid AM42. FO29 looks good at 21/0209Z, but that's during the business hours. If nothing's going on that needs tending to, I'll look to be on 435.850-855. VO52 looks to provide a window common with the western states and VE7 at around 22/0605Z. I'll be in the 145.900-905 range. We'll probably be in or near AM52 at that point. All that said, we're expecting to get some sea swells tomorrow and the next day. These would rock the ship side to side pretty well if they occur, which is likely. If it's only the swells and not bad weather, then my op sked should be OK though. 73, Jim, ND9M / VQ9JC Grid AM21 / GMT -11

1 0

Kysat-1
by Kevin Deane 20 Feb '11

20 Feb '11

So how come nobody is talking about Kysat-1 wich will be launched on Feb, 23??? A cubesat which will be FM!!! YAAAA!!! http://ssl.engineering.uky.edu/missions/orbital/kysat1/about-kysat-1/ Kysat-1 website http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/index.asp Vandenberg AFB website Looks pretty real to me unlike the ARRISat which I think they should just zip tie to the outside of the spacestation somewhere!!! At least then it would last and they could play with it if need be. Anyway just thinking out loud. Kevin KF7MYK

5 4