Yes, we once had a deal with Intelsat until it fell through. More recently we
had a deal with the US Air Force and one of its contractors, until that also
fell through. The reason we don't have a western hemisphere transponder in GEO
is not because the "old guard" wants to shoot it down, but because these types
of deals are very difficult to pull off in a market driven economy such as the
US satellite industry.
QO-100 was hosted on a satellite built for a royal government which is not
responsible to stockholders, a government in which an amateur radio operator
held a high position of influence. A US based company would have to answer to
Wall Street analysts to explain why they are giving away money that could have
been paid out in stock dividends.
Changing the BOD membership will not alter any of these facts. It is not
because we haven't asked the powers that be, and not because we are reluctant
to "jump ahead of the project and grab what is needed". Space is Hard, and all
the wishful thinking in the world is not going to change that.
73, Dan Schultz N8FGV
> I am intrigued about QO-100 and have monitored it here in Florida by
> remote WEB SDR access. I have not been active in the years since AO-40
> failed and have been eager to see some HEO operations like I enjoyed
> from AO-10 and AO-13. Listening to QO-100 has rekindled that interest.
> Last month on AMSAT-BB I posed the question about getting a GEO ride
> share with a commercial satellite, something that was considered 12
> years ago with Intelsat. Having a QO-100 type transponder here CONUS
> would grow the hobby and get folks like me active again (and
> contributing sums as I did for AO-40). However, the "old guard" shot
> my idea down for the usual reasons. (See my threads last month).
> Having a QO-100 type transponder with a hybrid of narrow band linear
> side and wide band digital side would open up a lot of opportunities
> for operations, public service and experimentation.?? I hope the new
> "slate" of BOD will consider this type of project as a priority.
> Personally, I think GOLF has not achieved results fast enough to
> getting us a larger footprint. I am not advocating scrapping of that
> effort, but sometimes you have to jump ahead of the project and grab
> what is needed.
> 73 Joe