- AMSAT-BB - mailman.amsat.org

space tourist
by Perry Yantis 21 Sep '06

21 Sep '06

I heard the space tourist talking on ISS frequency on last pass 1809 GMT 9/21/06 Perry WB8OTH Perry Yantis pyantis(a)earthlink.net

1 0

"PR" of PcSat2 during spacewalks this week
by Nate Duehr 21 Sep '06

21 Sep '06

Bob will probably have some comment on this, but I wondered if anyone else noticed it. I've been listening to/watching NASA TV most of the week with the Shuttle mission going on, and was obviously interested to watch/listen during the spacewalks. What I found especially interesting (or disturbing?) during the spacewalks was the announcers descriptions of the external payload boxes being worked on, like PCSat2. When they worked on removing PCSat2 there was this (almost mumbled) dumb description of what is was -- something like "radio experimentation equipment". And that's about it. No mention of its name. No mention that it was built by students at the Naval Academy. No mention of Amateur Radio. Yet, the next day when they were removing the other science experiments, there were long gushing words about all the peace, love, and worldwide joy that a box with 20 different pieces of metal stuck to the outside would bring as the scientists of the world, as they would be able to see the effects of being outside in space had on different metalurgical alloys. Sorry - ok yes, I'm exaggerating. But my curiosity is still piqued. Why was PCSat2 given such a "boring" billing during the announcer's time to speak about what the Astronauts were doing, versus all the glowing/gushing descriptions of the other scientific experiments? Is radio science or the word "Amateur" in Amateur Radio a source of some kind of embarasment for NASA PR people these days? Or, was there simply no good typed up description for the announcers to read from, so they skipped it? (I'm hoping here...) In other words, was there a PR opportunity for Amateur Radio missed because no one had time to send a good description and make sure it got into the correct hands for reading during the spacewalks? Was there anything anyone could have done to make the description of PCSat2 at least sound more interesting than a mumbled comment about a radio black-box the announcer seemed clueless about? Or at least even have its NAME mentioned so people with a web browser and Google could find the rest of the story? Somehow I want to give the announcers more credit than that they were just "dumb" about it -- they all seem to be VERY well versed in what's going on in almost all aspects of Shuttle operations. Along those lines, is there any reason they would be told NOT to say what it was, perhaps? (Hey, it's a possibility, right? I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but you have to consider all possibilities.) I'm very curious. Probably more than I should be. :-) Anyone else notice this? Nate WY0X

3 2

Re: Galileo interference on L band
by jules＠g0nzo.co.uk 21 Sep '06

21 Sep '06

I don't know what the situation is where you are, but in Europe 23cms is not 'Our band'. it is allocated for aeronautical navigation. We are, and have always been, secondary users. So any confrontation with the primary users would be counterproductive. Recently there was an incident where an ATC radar had developed a fault, which the authorities were unaware. UK amateurs characterised the fault and DF'ed it to a particular installation. This has undoubtedly earned us brownie points. We have been coexisting with CAA radar for many years, I'm sure we will continue to do so when Galileo comes on line. The L band signals are for the commercial service of Galileo. There are currently no fixed plans as to what this form this service will take and who the customers would be. But, I would have thought that any aviation system would use the public service, probably in conjunction with existing GPS. Even if our signals do block the commercial services, I am sure that the receivers employed will default to taking location data from the public Galileo and GPS service. So I would doubt that the users would even be aware that there is an issue. Fingers crossed. Jules G0NZO sco(a)sco-inc.com wrote >If we just give up whole freq bands because we are scared of the big >bad europeans who are drowning in socialist social program debt, then >we deserve to lose our bands if we give up without a fight. If a >country tries to take away our bad because of this "bad science" then >we should fight them in court and in the public relations area.

1 0

SO-50 1900 pass
by Tim Tapio 21 Sep '06

21 Sep '06

All, Tried with a handheld with a whip, heard a couple calls but couldn't make them out. Anyone have success with a like setup? 73 de Tim, K4SHF FM04

4 3

Florida AMSAT Net
by David J 21 Sep '06

21 Sep '06

The Florida AMSAT Net will meet this Thursday evening at the usual time of 19:30 ET, 23:30 UTC on the West Florida Group Ni4CE repeater system, the Orlando N4HHA repeater at 443.1 MHz, 103.5Hz tone, the N4LEM Cocoa repeater, 147.36 MHz +107.2 PL or connect by echolink to KG4YZY-R. The net's purpose is to provide a platform for hams with amateur satellite interest to meet and discuss topics of interest. All amateurs are invited to check in. Dave, AA4KN

1 0

Spare cycles for SETI
by Ellis family 21 Sep '06

21 Sep '06

Hi, colleagues. Please consider making your spare computer cycles available to various "social engineering" efforts through BOINC http://boinc.berkeley.edu/ , notably SETI http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/ . (instructions there to download the screensaver.) And if you are going to do that you might want to join the SETI Group called AMSAT led by Tom Clark W3IWI. http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30247 (instructions there to join.) Best wishes, Peter VK1KEP

2 1

off topic: Shuttle IRLP/Freqs
by Brad, K1GTo 20 Sep '06

20 Sep '06

Does anybody Have a IRLP node number on which NASA will broadcast the shuttle re-entry tomorrow morning?

2 1

Re: Galileo / US GPS
by joseph Murray 20 Sep '06

20 Sep '06

Hi Bob You said" What will happen if the Galileo goes up is that no European airport will allow a commercial jetliner to land without the Galileo system. This will inevitably lead to this basic system being in world wide use for navigational purposes ------- Does this imply that all airliners going to and from EU and US will have to have both Global positioning system ? ( Galileo and the US GPS) It would appear that the country to which an aircraft is approaching could demand a specific space navigetion syetem to be used. As I understand the current Galileo event : It is in test phase. No actual system funding has been established. No list of users have been verified to be real supporters. The use of the US GPS system does not cost the EU anything. All EU users of the current US GPS system will need both if there is no global support for a single system Without a Amateur satellite using a mode L up link that uses narrow analog and/or wide band digital modulation ( which could change over time ) the Galileo testing is not really testing for amateur interference. Thanks Joe K0VTY Joe K0VTY .

2 1

The SSETI ESEO GTO project
by Graham Shirville 20 Sep '06

20 Sep '06

Hi All, Just a quick update about the SSETI GTO satellite project. It is still on track for a launch from Kourou in Nov 2008. The planned AMSAT-UK U/S linear transponder is still on the manifest. (We do not have any opportunity to change from this frequency selection) The transponder is expected to have: an approx 50kHz bandwidth 10 watts of RF output Selectable DSP/SDX and analogue signal paths a 400bps beacon linear antennas with not much more than zero gain The satellite may not have good, long term, attitude control therefore: the antennas are being designed to work well even if the satellite is tumbling the link budget is not as good as AO40 was nor as P3E will be:( circular polarisation of ground segment antennas will be needed. Before we operate the system as an amateur transponder, it will be used as the initial main communications package for the reception of telecommands to, and for the transmission of telemetry and mission data from, the satellite - so it is quite important for the whole project:) The Preliminary Design Review will be completed during next month and an engineering model of the satellite should be under construction early next year. Hopefully this process will be visible using the same webcam system as we were able to engineer during the SSETI Express construction. The website http://www.sseti.net/ has lots of info about the SSETI program(me). Click on "missions" and ESEO for more details about their plans for their GTO satellite. A full report on the SSETI Express launch last year, the SSETI ESEO project with the DSP transponder, and their SSETI ESMO (moon orbiter!) project will be provided at the upcoming AMSAT-NA Symposium. 73 Graham G3VZV

1 0

Re: Why do the amsats get more and more complex?
by John B. Stephensen 20 Sep '06

20 Sep '06

We lost 1215-1240 MHz to GPS and were required to accept interference from ISM devices on 2400-2450 MHz 25 years ago so further restrictions are possible in the future. 73, John KD6OZH ----- Original Message ----- From: <sco(a)sco-inc.com> To: <amsat-bb(a)amsat.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 18:30 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do the amsats get more and more complex? Looks to me that only the commercial service will possibly interfere with the Ham L band uplink. The open service signals will not be in the L band. Even then the Commercial service will be broadcast in three bands, only one of those is in our ham band. I would therefore assume if the commercial receiver was having interference on the CS channel (our L band) that it would switch over to one of the other TWO Open channels to gets its info. See the specs below. So what is the problem. Are we afraid that we might offend the Europeans if we are on one of their three channels? Sounds to me like Europe is building this system so they will have their own GPS if they decide to go to war with us. I hope they build it such that the Islamic Fascists can't use it to deliver bombs and missiles. Les W4SCO At 02:05 PM 9/20/2006, John B. Stephensen wrote: >Unfortunately, the Gaileo downlink covers >1258-1299 MHz, the first satellite has been >lanched and the satellites in the constellation >will be on over the entire world. Our uplink >antennas have sidelobes that are 10-20 dB down, >so a 1 kW EIRP SSB uplink results in 10-100 W >radiated towards terrestrial receivers. A 256 >kbps uplink would require 16 kW EIRP and be 0.5-1 MHz wide. > >P3E has a second L receiver tuned to a null in >the Galileo signal (there is only one null in >the 1260-1270 MHz band) but no one knows if this >will help. SSB users can move to the U uplink if >L is a problem. However, this only works for >narrowband signals. A wideband uplink won't fit >in the null and can't move down in frequency. > >73, > >John >KD6OZH There will be four different navigation services available: * The Open Service (OS) will be free for anyone to access. The OS signals will be broadcast in two bands, at 1164-1214 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHz>MHz and at 1563-1591 MHz. Receivers will achieve an accuracy of <4 m horizontally and <8 m vertically if they use both OS bands. Receivers that use only a single band will still achieve <15 m horizontally and <35 m vertically, comparable to what the civilian GPS C/A service provides today. It is expected that most future mass market receivers, such as <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_navigation_system>automotive navigation systems, will process both the GPS C/A and the Galileo OS signals, for maximum coverage. * The encrypted Commercial Service (CS) will be available for a fee and will offer an accuracy of better than 1 m. The CS can also be complemented by ground stations to bring the accuracy down to less than 10 cm. This signal will be broadcast in three frequency bands, the two used for the OS signals, as well as at 1260-1300 MHz. * The encrypted Public Regulated Service (PRS) and Safety of Life Service (SoL) will both provide an accuracy comparable to the Open Service. Their main aim is robustness against jamming and the reliable detection of problems within 10 seconds. They will be targeted at security authorities (police, military, etc.) and safety-critical transport applications (air-traffic control, automated aircraft landing, etc.), respectively. In addition, the Galileo satellites will be able to detect and report signals from COSPAS-SARSAT search-and-rescue <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Position-Indicating_Radio_Beacon>beacons in the 406.0-406.1 MHz band, which makes them a part of the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Maritime_Distress_Safety_System>Global Maritime Distress Safety System. >----- Original Message ----- From: <sco(a)sco-inc.com> >To: <amsat-bb(a)amsat.org> >Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 16:16 UTC >Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do the amsats get more and more complex? > > >> >>Galileo (if it is ever built and launched and worked) would just be >>over Europe, right? That would leave the rest of the world the >>ability to use our L band uplink, right? If we hams are using a dish >>pointed at the sky with a narrow bandwidth how is that going to >>interfere with ground receivers some distance from us? We would be >>smart enough to not have the Eagle uplink on the same freq, right? >>And we would design Eagle such that we could (from ground control) >>move the Eagle receive freq away from any potential conflict with >>Galileo, right? And Eagle would be in orbit and operational long >>before Galileo, right? And Galileo receivers on the ground will have >>the ability to cut out any possible interference from us, right? >> >>Seems to me that we are planning to give up the L band (as an uplink) >>based on a lot of bad assumptions. >> >>Les W4SCO >> >> >>>The answer is in two parts. First, an L-band ground antenna would be too >>>large to disguise as a TVRO dish. Second, there is fear that over the >>>lifetime of Eagle that L-band could become unavailable, particularly in >>>Europe, if the Galileo system is deployed. Galileo would be a primary >>>service and Ham transmissions would likely interfere with low cost >>>commercial receivers. >>> >>>I don't wish to debate these points. I'm just telling you the reasoning >>>that >>>went into not choosing L-band. I assure you that every possibility was >>>considered. Lists were created and discussed on each alternative. >>> >>>Rick >>>W2GPS >>>AMSAT LM2232 >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 > _______________________________________________ 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