Not likely; I have absolute faith that the design team doesn't work that way.
But, I am curious what is being proposed. Is there a link to the current thinking on what this equipment will consist of? I didn't see anything on EaglePedia, but there are a lot of nooks and cranies in there and I might have missed it...
Greg KO6TH
----Original Message Follows---- From: "Eric H. Christensen" kf4otn@ericsatcom.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band downlink on P3E Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:41:14 -0400
Who is designing the ground equipment? It sounds like someone has a get-rich-quick scheme up their sleeve...
73s, Eric KF4OTN kf4otn@amsat.org http://www.ericsatcom.net
Quoting AL7CR al7cr@punakea.com:
I too totally agree. I see no reason why we can not vote on the designers decision with our support dollars. Personally, I am giving all mine to P3E.
The fact that they are "designing the ground equipment too" is of no comfort to me. My S band gear is on the tower and operating.
If AMSAT thinks this is such a great decision then let them find the money to support it without the majority of us.
Dean Shutt AL7CR
sco@sco-inc.com wrote:
I totally agree with you.
Les W4SCO
At 02:38 PM 9/7/2006, you wrote:
Rick,
I am in _TOTAL_ agreement. I live in the suburbs of Tampa/St. Pete and never had an interference problem on my 3 foot dish. I have used the same
dish to
log well over a dozen WiFi access points in that immediate
neighborhood.
With properly designed equipment, all that trash on 2.4 ghz goes away
with
some elevation. What won't work is helixes with multiple sidelobes, and surplus dishes that let one whole polarity of noise right thru the
back.
Everyone knows I'm a big supporter of AMSAT, but I gotta call it as I
see
it. It makes me think of "bait and switch" to collect money for a
project
featuring such a popular mode and then drop it.
The loss of Mode B on AO-40 caused a lot of the hardcore AO-10/AO-13
types
to walk away, and that was tough to overcome. Now that we have, and we
have
people wanting S band, we leave them behind too. Even if it's a sound engineering decision (and that hasn't been proven to me) it's a horrid marketing decision. Bad mojo for a organization that lives on the
donations
of it's members.
Sorry if this causes any pain to those involved with Eagle, but I
needed to
get it off my chest.
73, Drew KO4MA AMSAT LM 2332
While AO-40 was still alive and I was working it from deep within
"Silicon
Valley", an area blanketed by WiFi, 2.4GHz cordless phones, etc., I discovered that a parabolic dish with a properly positioned and
designed
patch feed (slightly under-illuminating the dish and having no
significant
side-lobes) would bring in AO-40's S-band downlink very nicely and cleanly.
Of course, other feed or antenna types such as helical antennas/feeds
were
useless in that environment.
I have to admit that I don't buy the "too noisy" argument.
73,
Rick KG6IAL
Sent via AMSAT-BB@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@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@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@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