I have to agree with Bruce, however I don't take statements made by Bob McGwier (N4HY) (see below) for face value.
Quote by Bob(email to Amsat-bb on Tue 25/07/2006): "In upcoming journal articles and in Eaglepedia documents showing the detailed calculations upon which our statements are based" Quote End
It is important that the data are presented, discussed, accepted or thrown out.
The main problem with the whole discussion is that the majority of folks have NOT seen the data. In addition, if the data are as sound as they are portrait, why is AMSAT-DL not believing in them and is including S-band as a downlink. How is the discussion between ANSAT-NA and AMSAT-DL going on this?
The lack of transparency is concerning and Eaglepedia is just an empty word if key documents and information is not published especially if it is available. Waiting for journal articles to come does not help. At the same time Eaglepedia still has the now "old" mechanical design specs and information on the S-band TX transponder available with no indication that both are obsolete.
73, Stefan VE4NSA
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Robertson Sent: September 7, 2006 5:06 PM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] S band and Eagle: an appeal for a higher level discussion
....As I understand it, the Eagle design team have used standard predictions of 801.11 usage to determine mathematically that by the time of launch the radio environment will simply not support reliable communications. I cannot imagine that they like these conclusions. Implementing new bands entails new risks, after all. But numbers don't lie (or shouldn't), and it would be a horrible disservice to all of us if they designed and launched a bird that was effectively mute at launch.....