- AMSAT-BB - mailman.amsat.org

Correction: Chandrayaan-2 not using "Earth Gravity Assist"
by Scott 29 Jul '19

29 Jul '19

Hello! One of the things I enjoy most about the hobby is learning new things. If that comes at the expense of correcting something I said or did incorrectly, that's fine. I recently posted on Twitter about how fortunate I had been to be in the right place at the right time to record an entire 2-hour fly-by of the ISRO Chandrayaan-2 spacecraft which is working towards a moon landing in a few weeks. https://twitter.com/scott23192/status/1155528793831944193 ... in that post, I referred to the situation as an Earth "gravity-assist". That was not the correct term for the flight of Chandrayaan-2 and if you'd like to hear what the difference is, please read on. Edgar, DF2MZ, was kind enough to fill me in on the distinction. To accomplish a gravity-assist, an object (Chandrayaan-2 in this example) needs to fly by another object (Earth in this case) in a path ideally described as "hyperbolic". Put simply, it's a one-time fly-by as opposed to a recurring orbit. You can read about the theory of this type of alignment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist This is not the case with Chandrayaan-2, which is why the ISRO is using a schedule of rocket firings to boost its orbit farther and farther from Earth. When an object like Chandrayaan-2 is in a recurring orbit (often described as "elliptical"), it's more-or-less going to stay there unless outside forces change that. I guess the most common forces would be gravity or rocket firings. For an amazing, mathematically correct animation of Chandrayaan-2's journey (complete w/ on-schedule rocket firings), check out: http://sankara.net/chandrayaan2.html (the last "big loop" that eventually makes the lunar capture possible will blow your mind) So that's the difference between the two circumstances and I wanted to set the record straight. I greatly enjoyed being able to record the spacecraft's S-Band downlink throughout the entire pass but didn't want to leave an incorrect description of the pass hanging out there. In the end it was a nice bonus to learn something new about the nature of orbits since they play such a major role in our hobby. Thanks, -Scott, K4KDR

1 0

Re: [amsat-bb] HEO/Elliptical [was: AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more interest and revenue]
by Roy Dean 29 Jul '19

29 Jul '19

> > What needs to be donated? Technical expertise? Parts? Ground > transportation? Meeting rooms? Negotiation skill? Political contacts? > Clean room time? Payload space? > Everyone always thinks "money". (As much) money isn't needed if "what > money buys" is available for negotiation, barter, or "in the store house > awaiting donation". What are the top barriers? Inquiringly yours, > Ev, W2EV I think, in this case, the top barrier, by FAR, is MONEY. The ride to geostationary or HEO is the biggest barrier. The way I see it, there are two solutions: Buy a ride, or mooch a ride. So again, it's down to money or some amazing negotiating skills. Somebody more in tuned with this endeavor will correct me if I'm wrong (and I often am). --Roy K3RLD

3 3

HEO and EMCOMM
by Les Rayburn 29 Jul '19

29 Jul '19

One application for a geostationary satellite that should not be discounted would be emergency communications. During Hurricane Michael in the panhandle of Florida last year, amateur radio (HF) was critical despite scores of temporary cell towers being deployed into the area. We were on the ground, embedded with law enforcement for over a week in Panama City, and saw first-hand the communication difficulties. Problems with IP routing prevented many of these temporary cell sites from working properly, forcing amateur radio back into the forefront. Ditto Hurricane Maria, where the island location made communications difficult. Having a geostationary amateur satellite available 24/7 would greatly increase the ability of amateur radio to provide EMCOMM on a backup basis to served agencies when needed. This is a mission that would appeal to DoD, Congress, and many other stakeholders. AMSAT should discuss these possibilities with the ARRL and begin lobbying our contacts on the Hill to find a ride for this mission. 73, Les Rayburn, N1LF Maylene, AL EM63nf AMSAT #38965, ARRL Life Member, CVHS Life Member, SVHF Member

3 2

Exciting VARA SAT digital experiments via QO-100
by KC9SGV 29 Jul '19

29 Jul '19

Hi All, ISO0GRB has set up a Winlink server via QO-100. The digital mode used, is the new VARA SAT of Jose, EH5HVK, with increased latency and wider frequency mismatch tolerance. This slows the thruput a bit, but still gives very useful operating results. See the discussion here: https://forum.amsat-dl.org/index.php?thread/2829-is0grb-winlink-server-on-q… Bernard, KC9SGV Sent from my iPad

1 1

Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more interest and revenue
by Daniel Schultz 29 Jul '19

29 Jul '19

Jean Marc, Yes, it is wonderful that hams in your hemisphere were offered this amazing opportunity from Qatar. However, the economics of middle eastern royalty differ somewhat from economics in our hemisphere, where corporate stockholder value is the primary if not the only business consideration. We have had some potential GEO opportunities with Intelsat and the US Air Force, but business considerations eventually won out and the projects died. We will keep trying to find one of these opportunities, but we must have a plan of action to proceed on our own if a rich benefactor does not come forward. One of the factors that I did not mention in my previous missive is that we are now in the era of "full cost accounting" in which it is much harder for a project manager to bury the integration cost of an amateur satellite into his general budget. 73, Dan Schultz N8FGV ------ Original Message ------ Received: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 11:15:04 AM EDT From: Jean Marc Momple <jean.marc.momple(a)gmail.com> To: Daniel Schultz <n8fgv(a)usa.net>Cc: amsat-bb(a)amsat.org Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more interest and revenue > Daniel, > > One way around all the issues you mentioned is may be to "copy with pride" the QO-100 GEO which has changed Radio Amateur satellites operations this part of the world. > > To explain; we are now we are back to experimentation building PA’s, feeds etc… also enabling new modes which where not possible before (ATV in my case). For 3B8 this is fantastic as in spite active on LEO's since 1978, not much to do as we are in the middle of the ocean, only a few guys reachable on LEO good passes. Now we can QSO with half of the world on a bird, loud and clear 24/7 e.g. > > What I mean is that trying to partner with some commercial operators to have a HAM transponder on board of their satellite may be a solution, some may even sponsor if we are convincing enough. More it would be fantastic to have worldwide coverage with say 3 GEO’s, just a vision. > > Some food for thought. > > 73 > > > Jean Marc (3B8DU)

1 0

PSAT2 Commanding of transponder/camera boards
by Robert Bruninga 29 Jul '19

29 Jul '19

PSAT2 is looking for stations in the low latitudes (below 35 deg) for better commanding. With the 28 degree orbit, our best command stations rarely see PSAT2. We need stations for PSAT2 VHF with a radio capable of 1 KHz steps or less on FM. We also need stations for the PSK31 and SSTV commanding. These need UHF reception able to make I/Q recordings. And for SSTV commanding, a station with HF 29 MHz uplink is desired. So far, PY5LF in Brazil has been working very well. Bob, Wb4APR

1 0

Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more interest and revenue
by Daniel Schultz 29 Jul '19

29 Jul '19

On July 28, 2019 6:46:20 PM CDT, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb(a)amsat.org> wrote: >What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type goals? >Ev, W2EV We would all love to have another HEO satellite, however the ecosystem in which we live today has changed a great deal since AMSAT built AO-10, AO-13 and AO-40 a couple of decades ago: 1. The launch market has become saturated with small satellites. In the 1970's, 80's and 90's, AMSAT was often the only entity that was willing to put a satellite on top of a new untested launch vehicle. Today every university on the planet has its own satellite project, along with more and more high schools and even a few elementary schools. AMSAT is working with some of these universities to carry ham radio transponders on their satellites, but the university satellite mission is different from our mission, they just want to throw together something fast and cheap that can launch before the students graduate, and they don't need to get to HEO to do that. Long term reliability is not part of their equation. Commercial and Government entities have also discovered the value of small satellites, and the launch market has reacted to that by charging market-based prices for launches that AMSAT used to get for free or at highly discounted rates. We have to compete against commercial enterprises funded by venture capital, and because of the non-commercial nature of amateur radio, we can't use the same business model of charging the end users to recover our costs. NASA can and does launch small Cubesats for educational and scientific purposes that fit into the NASA mission, but amateur radio communications by itself does not advance the NASA mission. We need to find partners in the educational and scientific world to get launches through this program. Because Cubesats have dominated the satellite market, there are no more affordable launches for satellites the size of AO-13, let alone AO-40. We are now faced with the need to cram the functionality of an AO-13 satellite into a 3U (or possibly 6U) Cubesat. We may or we may not be able to do that, there is a limit to the ability to cram 50 Kg of payload into a 5 Kg box. While Moore's Law has enabled today's electronics technology to be smaller and lighter than it was two decades ago, remember that satellites are driven by Shannon's Law, not by Moore's Law. We need to generate electrical power and we need antenna gain to carry out a satellite communications mission. AO-13 was a simple spinning satellite that was big enough to accept the inefficiencies of off-pointed solar arrays. On a Cubesat we would need to keep the smaller solar arrays precisely aimed at the Sun and the antennas aimed at the Earth, and this requires sophisticated three axis control systems. 2. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that came into force about 20 years ago have placed severe restrictions on our ability to work with foreign partners. AO-40 was built by a partnership of more than a dozen countries all contributing parts, subsystems and money to get it done. Today we are cut off from the rest of the world. Building a wall around the USA has never made us safe or prosperous. 3. Orbital debris regulations now require satellite builders to prove to the FCC that the satellite will reenter in 25 years or less. In highly inclined elliptical orbits such as AO-13 we can possibly exploit solar and lunar resonances that will bring down the satellite in a decade or two, but in the lower inclination GTO launches that are more common, we would be dependent on rocket thrust to provide the delta-V to lower the perigee. If you look at the NORAD catalog, most of the spent rocket bodies left in GTO remain there for a long time unless they are deliberately de-orbited. All of these factors have lined up to make the AMSAT mission much more difficult than it was 20 years ago. Spaceflight is hard, and if we don't have the fortitude to meet the new challenges, than we will not be part of it in the future. I believe that we can and we will have new HEO satellites but we won't be doing it under the rules that we operated under in the past. If somebody wanted to write a check for $20 million, we could buy a HEO launch to whatever orbit we wanted, but in the absence of such support we will have to use cleverness and guile to get it done. I have constantly reminded the satellite professionals that it was the hams who created the secondary launch market that they now enjoy, but I have have so far not seen much interest from them in reciprocating that favor. 73, Dan Schultz N8FGV

3 2

Fwd: AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more interest and revenue
by KC9SGV 29 Jul '19

29 Jul '19

Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: KC9SGV <kc9sgv(a)gmail.com> > Date: July 29, 2019 at 10:00:55 AM CDT > To: Zach Leffke <zleffke(a)vt.edu> > Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more interest and revenue > > Excellent points and thoughts by Dan and Zach. > > I might just add that yes, we have ITAR and EAR, but would asking a future South American commercial GEO communications or TV satellite effort to just lend us a standby transponder or two, be a violation of these laws ? > (Existing power, budget, etc.) > We could act naive and just ask. > Sometimes, just asking, is all that is needed. > Especially if STEM is pushed. > > Bernard, > KC9SGV > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Jul 29, 2019, at 9:31 AM, Zach Leffke via AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb(a)amsat.org> wrote: >> >> Good summary Dan. >> >> I have nothing major to add, but would like to make two statements: >> >> 1) through the VT/AMSAT partnership in the past we explored opportunities for both HEO and GEO missions. The most 'real' of those opportunities involved a possible GEO mission on an Air Force satellite, with VT engineers bridging the military/ham radio sides. HEO was a briefer opportunity, and sadly neither of the opportunities panned out (though technically GEO is 'on hold indefinitely'.....). From my work with the Hume Center at VT and the Space@VT group, I will attempt to keep my eyes open for similar opportunities in the future, and if something appears to have 'meat on the bone' as a target of opportunity and potential rideshare/secondary payload, I'll bring it to AMSAT's attention. I would encourage others to do the same if they are in a similar position........it may be we don't pay for a HEO/GEO, but rather an odd confluence of events makes something materialize in our favor....and we should be ready, willing, and able to take advantage of those situations.... >> >> 2) I also constantly remind folks (from students to gov't officials when the opportunity presents itself) about Dan's last statement that Ham radio made the secondary launch market. OSCAR-1 launched 4 years and change after Sputnik-1, and I love watching eyes widen when folks realize what that means (especially the gov't types). >> >> >> -Zach, KJ4QLP >> >> P.S. LOVE the positive direction of this thread... >> >> -- >> Research Associate >> Aerospace Systems Lab >> Ted & Karyn Hume Center for National Security & Technology >> Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University >> Work Phone: 540-231-4174 >> Cell Phone: 540-808-6305 >> >>> On 7/29/19 10:08 AM, Daniel Schultz via AMSAT-BB wrote: >>> On July 28, 2019 6:46:20 PM CDT, Ev Tupis via AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb(a)amsat.org> >>> wrote: >>>> What are the top barriers to revisiting highly elliptical and AO-40 type >>> goals? >>>> Ev, W2EV >>> We would all love to have another HEO satellite, however the ecosystem in >>> which we live today has changed a great deal since AMSAT built AO-10, AO-13 >>> and AO-40 a couple of decades ago: >>> >>> 1. The launch market has become saturated with small satellites. In the >>> 1970's, 80's and 90's, AMSAT was often the only entity that was willing to put >>> a satellite on top of a new untested launch vehicle. Today every university on >>> the planet has its own satellite project, along with more and more high >>> schools and even a few elementary schools. AMSAT is working with some of these >>> universities to carry ham radio transponders on their satellites, but the >>> university satellite mission is different from our mission, they just want to >>> throw together something fast and cheap that can launch before the students >>> graduate, and they don't need to get to HEO to do that. Long term reliability >>> is not part of their equation. >>> >>> Commercial and Government entities have also discovered the value of small >>> satellites, and the launch market has reacted to that by charging market-based >>> prices for launches that AMSAT used to get for free or at highly discounted >>> rates. We have to compete against commercial enterprises funded by venture >>> capital, and because of the non-commercial nature of amateur radio, we can't >>> use the same business model of charging the end users to recover our costs. >>> NASA can and does launch small Cubesats for educational and scientific >>> purposes that fit into the NASA mission, but amateur radio communications by >>> itself does not advance the NASA mission. We need to find partners in the >>> educational and scientific world to get launches through this program. >>> >>> Because Cubesats have dominated the satellite market, there are no more >>> affordable launches for satellites the size of AO-13, let alone AO-40. We are >>> now faced with the need to cram the functionality of an AO-13 satellite into a >>> 3U (or possibly 6U) Cubesat. We may or we may not be able to do that, there is >>> a limit to the ability to cram 50 Kg of payload into a 5 Kg box. While Moore's >>> Law has enabled today's electronics technology to be smaller and lighter than >>> it was two decades ago, remember that satellites are driven by Shannon's Law, >>> not by Moore's Law. We need to generate electrical power and we need antenna >>> gain to carry out a satellite communications mission. AO-13 was a simple >>> spinning satellite that was big enough to accept the inefficiencies of >>> off-pointed solar arrays. On a Cubesat we would need to keep the smaller solar >>> arrays precisely aimed at the Sun and the antennas aimed at the Earth, and >>> this requires sophisticated three axis control systems. >>> >>> 2. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that came into force >>> about 20 years ago have placed severe restrictions on our ability to work with >>> foreign partners. AO-40 was built by a partnership of more than a dozen >>> countries all contributing parts, subsystems and money to get it done. Today >>> we are cut off from the rest of the world. Building a wall around the USA has >>> never made us safe or prosperous. >>> >>> 3. Orbital debris regulations now require satellite builders to prove to the >>> FCC that the satellite will reenter in 25 years or less. In highly inclined >>> elliptical orbits such as AO-13 we can possibly exploit solar and lunar >>> resonances that will bring down the satellite in a decade or two, but in the >>> lower inclination GTO launches that are more common, we would be dependent on >>> rocket thrust to provide the delta-V to lower the perigee. If you look at the >>> NORAD catalog, most of the spent rocket bodies left in GTO remain there for a >>> long time unless they are deliberately de-orbited. >>> >>> All of these factors have lined up to make the AMSAT mission much more >>> difficult than it was 20 years ago. Spaceflight is hard, and if we don't have >>> the fortitude to meet the new challenges, than we will not be part of it in >>> the future. I believe that we can and we will have new HEO satellites but we >>> won't be doing it under the rules that we operated under in the past. If >>> somebody wanted to write a check for $20 million, we could buy a HEO launch to >>> whatever orbit we wanted, but in the absence of such support we will have to >>> use cleverness and guile to get it done. I have constantly reminded the >>> satellite professionals that it was the hams who created the secondary launch >>> market that they now enjoy, but I have have so far not seen much interest from >>> them in reciprocating that favor. >>> >>> 73, Dan Schultz N8FGV >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sent via AMSAT-BB(a)amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available >>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed >>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. >>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! >>> Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sent via AMSAT-BB(a)amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available >> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed >> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. >> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! >> Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb

1 1

Launch 2019-043
by John Mac 28 Jul '19

28 Jul '19

Hi all, I asked this question on twitter but no response at this time. If there were more than 1 satellite on that Launch, I have not seen any TLE for the other satellites yet. Anyone have any info ?? or have I missed something? John

2 1

Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT-NA solution: DX (HEO) to attract more interest and revenue
by Clayton Coleman W5PFG 28 Jul '19

28 Jul '19

Hello Dave KJ9I, "Everyone: Solution/recommendation: HEO ASAP (yes I am aware of GOLF) to make DX possible and bring in a new 'market' (revenue) and interest level to AMSAT." It may come as a surprise to many that there are no objections anywhere within AMSAT leadership about pursuing HEO opportunities as soon as possible (ASAP.) The emphasis on "possible" is where things get tricky. The current board members, with whom I have shared the pleasure of serving AMSAT, support and encourage technologies and launch opportunities to push us beyond LEO. It takes resources across many disciplines to make things happen: engineering volunteers, project leadership, money, and economical launch opportunities, to name a few. There are many great ideas (HEO, MEO, Digital, 3U & 6U Cubesats) but ultimately decisions must be made to deliver AMSAT missions. Sometimes it involves risk. The long and short term track record of AMSAT is good, especially when you consider the periodic, multi-million dollar failures of the commercial world. One more comment on the word "market:" Amateur radio satellites are not pay-to-play for obvious legal reasons. Like most amateur radio infrastructure, such as repeaters, costs are mostly borne by a generous few -- not the multitude of users. Ask anyone who operates an amateur radio resource, even websites like QRZ.com, and they will tell you that the masses do not contribute. I do not believe popularity of a satellite directly affects revenue. It has yet to be proven. Historically AMSAT has seen small increases in membership after missions but this does not come close to funding projects. Bottom line - it is purely a myth that AMSAT doesn't pursue or endeavor to provide amateur transponders with greater coverage and DX opportunities. When and how we get there requires a combination of dedicated volunteers and generous benefactors. 73, Clayton W5PFG

1 0