- AMSAT-BB - mailman.amsat.org

5Ghz WiFi
by sco＠sco-inc.com 11 Sep '06

11 Sep '06

QVC is advertising the SMC WMRAG EZ Stream 2.4GHz/5GHz Wireless Multimedia Receiver for $199. If the wifi devices start going to the 5Ghz band how would that affect Eagle in the future? Les W4SCO

4 3

Re: S band, experience from UK
by jules＠g0nzo.co.uk 11 Sep '06

11 Sep '06

All My station is in a built up area in the UK, which I would assume has a level of S band licence exempt traffic that is typical of most areas. I can see 5 video senders on my ATV receiver and a 4 WLAN networks on my PDA with built in antenna. When I listened to AO40, I only had problems below 10 degrees elevation. This represents a small percentage of a pass, that it did not worry me. (I am aware that the orbit of Eagle may not be quite so favourable). Also, AO40 signals WERE rock crushing for me. With a 5ft dish, very non optimal linear feed and pretty average NF, I could hear VK stations as armchair copy in ssb, even at apogee. Often they were still copyable at LOS, unless I was pointing straight at the WLAN. I will try and make some quantive measurements and submit them, but my gut feeling is that S band is still a viable downlink in my location. My 2 penneth worth.... I am not an AMSAT-NA member. Any donations I make go indirectly through my local AMSAT group. So I am not going to get into the politics of this. But... I expect that the decision to drop S-band was not taken lightly. The people who take on these satellite projects, do so at great personal and sometimes financial expense. Given the great commitment that these people make, it seems a little discourteous to moan about not being able to use a small part of our stations. Our S-band capability will still be useable for P3E. Also, by building an S-band station, you have already reaped the greatest reward, which is the experience of doing it, isn't that what Amateur Radio is all about. In all hobbies, it seems that there is so much in-fighting, that people loose sight of the bigger picture. There are people in authority who are out to get us. In this case it is the commercial pressure on our spectrum. The old adage, 'Use it or loose it', is very true here. So if the bit that we are able to use doesn't happen to match the box that we have on our mast, then we must adapt. Who knows, you may learn something on the way. Jules G0NZO

4 4

AO-51 now in L/S
by Andrew Glasbrenner 11 Sep '06

11 Sep '06

AO-51 is now in L/S for the next week. Uplink is 1268.700, downlink 2401.200, FM. If you enjoy L/S please get active this week. The AO-51 Operations Group would like to hear as many users as possible. The level of traffic helps determine how often we run this mode, as well as other modes. 73, Drew KO4MA AMSAT LM 2332

1 0

S band: Too early, as I said
by Robert McGwier 10 Sep '06

10 Sep '06

As I said previous to this note, our analysis and all of this hoopla is released too early. We have not fully prepared for the onslaught and we have only done a <<technical analysis>> that resulted from the assumption that Galileo was going to cause loss of L band. It is not in our political interests frankly for this understanding to be widespread but now that it is, we might as well go ahead and do all of our "worst case scenario" analysis in public. It is my understanding that Argentina and the Netherlands have LOST 2400-2450 for use by terrestrial radio amateurs because of interference from amateur radio operators (primarily BLOODY ATV) to 802.11 services. Amateurs have been told to stop transmitting in those bands. I need much more information. DO NOT SEND YOUR ANECDOTE HERE. Please send to me DIRECTLY your personal, first hand knowledge of loss of 2400-2450 IN YOUR COUNTRY or any other country FOR WHICH YOU CAN PROVIDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. I have no interest whatsoever in rumor. I need facts. If this phenomenon is widespread, then the use of S band as an uplink is a useless argument to be having and the whining can stop. ALL that was done in San Diego was a technical analysis. No legal or political analysis has been done at all. We are not prepared to say "This is what we are doing". We are prepared to say "This is what the technical folks came up with given the assumption of the loss of L band and the assumption that 9 cm would be politically unacceptable". NOTHING ELSE should be assumed now. But let me repeat (ad infinitum?), I am personally interested in managing the design and building of an instrument that accomplishes the AMSAT vision statement. If I find that we have essentially lost all microwave bands we have in the amateur satellite service that can be used effectively to support the vision statement (given engineering computation and "circuit practicalities"), I will lose interest in managing this whether it be an AMSAT political decision or an international frequency disaster which we have allowed to go unanswered in any substantive way. AMSAT-DL is the perfect vehicle to produce P3 spacecraft with our help where needed. We do not need to duplicate their efforts. DO NOT send your anecdote to this list. Send your FACTS to me, with supporting evidence, so I can summarize what I believe the impact of this to be for the AMSAT BOD. Bob N4HY -- AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein

3 3

S-Band Not 2.4 but 2.3
by Matt 10 Sep '06

10 Sep '06

Ok granted 2.40 GHz to 2.45 GHz has a high noise floor and will get worse. So this will be a good band for uplinking. I know it's not a satellite allocation but what about a downlink around 2310 ~ 2390? Or maybe 2300 ~ 2302? I also know that some countries have lost access to 2.302 GHz to 2.4 GHz (VK is one) but as a downlink no one is stopping us from listening there. Or must a satellite transmitters be compliant with all international allocations? Or maybe 2300 ~ 2302 would upset to many other users?

12 15

S band downlink on P3E
by Joseph Trombino Jr 10 Sep '06

10 Sep '06

Disappointed to find out that there will not be an S band downlink on Eagle Will there be an S band downlink on the P3E bird??? Sure hate having to fork over more money each time a new satellite goes up because previous up/downlinks are not being used anymore....makes me wish for more mode A LEO birds (grin) 73, Joe W2KJ

26 37

Re: Eagle Satellite Design
by George Henry 10 Sep '06

10 Sep '06

So, how much to rent one of the TSFR spaces? Maybe all of us who still believe in S-Band could pool our funds to fly our own transponder..... fund the mode instead of the bird? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Hambly (W2GPS)" <w2gps(a)cnssys.com> To: <amsat-bb(a)amsat.org> Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 5:21 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Eagle Satellite Design <snip> > > c) There are at least two TSFR (This-Space-For-Rent) packages that could > possibly contain other RF or other payloads, conditioned on the > availability > of power, antenna space and compatibility with the primary payloads.

2 1

STS-115 TLE
by jean-claude.aveni 10 Sep '06

10 Sep '06

Hello the gang TLE for STS-115 Atlantis STS-115 1 29391U 06036A 06253.64554025 -.00237466 00000-0 -11855-2 0 67 2 29391 051.6337 107.2487 0019979 239.6919 163.3114 15.81316756 163 From Space Track USAF 73 jc tk5gh -- *Jean-Claude Aveni* Tel portable : *06 80 92 38 79* Courriel prime : jean-claude.aveni(a)wanadoo.fr '' alternate : aveni(a)lma.cnrs-mrs.fr Site web à l'URL : http://astro-notes.org Call radio amateur : TK5GH

1 0

Re: S band or any backup?
by Robert McGwier 10 Sep '06

10 Sep '06

>"David wrote: >It would be good to know that the linear backup plans have not been quietly >filed in the waste paper basket. " The SDX will be subjected to really brutal radiation testing. It does sound sweet to have a transmitter and receiver as linear as the SDX can be. I do not know anyone who is building the fall back piece and while it has not fallen off the table, I don't know who is building it. "Good engineering is important, but planing for the unexpected is vital." Indeed. "Incidentally. It occurs to me that a disadvantage of having one major UV transponder operating 24/7 is that while that concept removes the need for complicated scheduling it will occupy 100kHz or so of the 2m band permanently which may not be totally desirable in a limited 200kHz bandwidth. Presumably with Eagle 2 and 3 under design / construction at the time of launch they will have differnt bands. - Maybe 2390 - 2400 ish Good point. The 7/24 plan does include the digital piece in our plans. And yes, we do NOT have to duplicate U/V on follow on birds to Eagle. If P3E goes well and we see no need for another U/V transponder we can indeed do something different on subsequent Eagles. Enjoying the debate David G0MRF " -- AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein

1 0

Re: S band downlink on P3E
by k7zt＠cox.net 10 Sep '06

10 Sep '06

Ok, I ran S Band on AO-40 as well; my home, radio shack, and neighborhood are covered with 2.4Gig stuff. The ONLY interference I ever received was in the form of Very short burst (pops) which any noise blanker was extreamly effective at removing. The 5Gig band will be in the same shape as S Band is today. I simply don’t buy into the Interference argument. 73's DE K7ZT, Joe ---- "Félim Doyle M3HIM" <Felim.M3HIM(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > But if you were a true conspiracy theorist your message would not have made > it this far. Some of mine didn't - and I'm no anarchist > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Goncalves" <davegoncalves(a)gmail.com> > To: <amsat-bb(a)amsat.org> > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 4:27 PM > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band downlink on P3E > > > > I love these messages; I really can't get enough of them. They really > > brighten my day. > > If Luc and AMSAT would bind these into a book, I'd buy it. I'd call it > "The > > AMSAT Anthology of Conspiracy". > > > > Luc, keep on doing what you are doing. > > > > Dave W1EUJ > > > > > Disappointed to find out that there will not be an S band downlink on > > > Eagle > > > > > > > > Will there be an S band downlink on the P3E bird??? > > > > > > > > Sure hate having to fork over more money each time a new satellite > goes > > > up > > > > because previous up/downlinks are not being used anymore....makes me > > > wish > > > > for more mode A LEO birds (grin) > > > > > > > > 73, Joe W2KJ > > > > > > Another bad move by AMSAT-NA... I don't know if they look at their > famous > > > survey about their > > > members opinions here? Probably not could be some one will wake up from > > > lethargy at the next > > > symposium and voices opinions about the maintaining of mode S. > > > > > > If AMSAT-NA is building sats in close circle they just have to openly > > > admitted it even if admission > > > is not a very spoken word they can at least give some explanations on > > > their facts who leads them to > > > scrap mode S? > > > > > > Interference? even if they wants to go higher at the time eagle will be > in > > > space the higher > > > frequencies will be as crowded as 2.4 actually. We actually see some > > > decreased in 2.4 ghz apparatus > > > as the public always want the most recent goodies even FRS/GMRS are > moving > > > to 5.2 ghz. > > > > > > Suggestion: At the next AMSAT-NA 2006 Space Symposium it will > appropriate > > > to voices opinions to the > > > BOD asking them to maintain as planned the mode S. > > > > > > Just to pointed out on a 2005 AMSAT-NA Dayton Hamvention Jim Sanford > > > WB4GCS made a presentation on > > > eagle project and he said i quote " S band will be our bread and butter > on > > > the downlink" a > > > prototype of L/S and C/S where planned for the 2005 Symposium at that > > > time. > > > > > > He also mention that the C/C project in on a bleeding edge technology > > > (read experimental) and they > > > where not too sure if they will even be able to make it. > > > > > > Why the C/C band project? he let go this " this will permit some folks > to > > > use it from their > > > balcony" the cat goes out the bag AGAIN the same ECHO mindings are > > > resurecting...The guy with an HT > > > will be able to make it without using a huge antenna! > > > > > > We will never be able to get rid of this obsession and you know now why > > > they want to move up? The > > > guy who live on a balcony is living in an apartment complex where S band > > > in unusable. Here is why > > > the C/C project come up. How many actual sat operator are living in > > > apartments? the majority of > > > some of them? > > > > > > Here is the whole logics behind this mode S scrapping. If you read a bit > > > behind the lines you will > > > see he speak about P3E where mode S will be present and he confirm some > > > collaboration between both > > > teams. He also say some of the Eagle builders are funding their own > > > project. From this since 2005 > > > we can only see the builders behind the C/C project pushing so hard to a > > > point to get the money > > > previously intended for the 2 S mode TX redirected to their C/C project. > > > > > > Who is driving AMSAT-NA an hollow BOD? an hollow president? Or a third > > > builders manipulating wing > > > who blackmail the BOD? > > > > > > None of them? I let the conclusion yours! > > > > > > P.S.To the BOD its not the best way to attract new members or convince > > > those who leave to rejoin! > > > > > > "-" > > > The medium is the message...The content is the audience...;) > > > > > > Luc Leblanc VE2DWE > > > Skype VE2DWE > > > www.qsl.net/ve2dwe > > > Former AMSAT-NA coordonnator and member. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > David Goncalves > > _______________________________________________ > > 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

2 1