Ib,
I was only looking at my situation (and by default probably the rest of the Pacific). I hadn't really considered the EU footprint. These are good points to consider. Since I would assume a max constellation of three P4 sats the decision for location preferences will have to juggle maximum coverage vs overlap between continents. A wild guess is that enabling satellite linking may be the way for this instead of optimum intercontinental locations, but this should all be considered. Perhaps mid ocean locations would be more useful than over land locations? So 060W 180, 060E?
In the end it will also be determined by what Intelsat will offer.
Ed
At 05:50 AM 12/15/2007, OZ1MY wrote:
Hi all, I do not want to go into this discussion from a political point of view - just technical. From my point of view looking at it from Copenhagen, the most interesting thing is where the GEO is placed. A fast look at NOVA manipulating existing GEO satellite keps makes it clear that a position at around 90 degrees West will put NA and SA into the footprint (including Hawaii and Alaska). This position will place me outside the footprint - and most of Europe as well. If shifted to 60 degrees West I can just make it :-) That is with an elevation of 2.4 degrees and a range around 41400 km. If I can make it will amongst other factors depend upon the radiation pattern of the antennas on the satellite. Regarding frequencies I agree with Ed, KL7UW. Lots of us have the equipment and antennas to work L/S. Also any station able to work L2/S2 on AO-40 should be able to make it.
The comments above assumes SSB - but if we add the possibilities to use digital forms of (voice) modulation, we can add the advantage of Forward Error Correction.
A non technical comment: Go for both.
73 OZ1MY Ib
73, Ed - KL7UW ====================================== BP40IQ 50-MHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com 144-EME: FT-847, mgf-1801, 4x-xpol-20, 185w DUBUS Magazine USA Rep [email protected] ======================================