Hello John,
Thanks for your query about LO-19.
Thanks to the good efferts of our AMSAT Operations VP, Drew KO4MA and his establishment of the right contacts, a few weeks ago I spent some time corresponding with the LUSAT/LO-19 team. They are a great bunch of hams, and they are (rightfully so) very proud of their "old" bird.
We came to the conclusion that the failure mode of LO-19 is quite different from that of AO-16, and that any change from its current state of CW telemetry would either be impossible, or sufficiently risky that it was best to "leave well enough alone." So, I think we can expect that LO-19 will continue to report CW telemetry for a long time. It's a great bird and its 18 years of continous operations is an amazing feat.
Drew KO4MA has been attempting contact with the WO-18 folks. DO-17 isn't such a likely candidate for doing much of anything...
Other thoughts...you can include IO-26 as being "nearly the same" as the original microsats, Oscars 16/17/18/19. In fact, I have started some preliminary testing of IO-26. The testing is especially slow, and it will take some time to sort out its current state (what works and what doesn't). Once we know that, we can begin to consider what function(s) IO-26 might serve. While we have no idea at the moment if it's feasible, in theory its hardware could permit being reconfigured like AO-16. We just don't know what our options are for now.
Rest assured, we're working on it :)
73,
Mark Hammond N8MH
_______
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:20:07 -0500 From: "John Marranca, Jr" < [email protected] > Subject: [amsat-bb] Configuring LUSAT-19 like AO-16??? To: [email protected] Message-ID: < [email protected] > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Good Afternoon, Everyone.
Last month, a question was posed about the possibility of reconfiguring LUSAT/Oscar 19 in the "bent pipe" style that AO-16 is currently in. As I am writing this, both AO-16 and LU-19 are overhead...and both have stellar signals.
Is there any news/update as to whether or not this can be accomplished??
Upon reading the Satellite Handbook, it appears as though 16, 17, 18, and 19 were pretty much similar. If I am wrong, then I will stand as corrected, but if 16 could be converted in such a fashion, what prevents 19?
Wishing for Spring!
John KB2HSH