On 2019-08-22 07:36, Michelle Thompson via AMSAT-BB wrote:
Uplink Requirements from Echostar have been outlined to me, but detailed discussions on how independent we can get have not yet been held. Worst case it’s their modem in an aggregator, multiple uplinks would have to been carefully coordinated (or scheduled).
I've done some thinking on this, and I don't think it is something that Amateur Radio funds should be spent on. Others have made similar arguments, and here are mine.
This is indeed much more restrictive than the ham-only 4B (Virginia Tech, they have renewed their search for a launch) and Phase 4 Space (ORI, in development and actively fundraising). But, this is a relatively inexpensive way to test and learn a lot of new things.
I don't see that the Amateur Radio community learns anything from this exercise that couldn't be done with a ground-based system on our own bands. There is no Doppler correction to be done, and path loss can be simulated with attenuation and/or lower power operation. Most of the link is hidden from the operator, and the underlying information encoding is ridiculously complex, far more than is required for a KISS EMCOMM system.
We have 4 years until end of life of Echostar9. That is more than the guaranteed mission time for WFOV ended up being at the end of that rideshare offer. For an order of magnitude less money.
But how could that $96,000, over 4 years, benefit the AMSAT mission of Greater Orbit Larger Footprint? I think quite a bit, but I'm biased:
De-orbit devices, required for the GOLF missions, are expensive, and testing facility fees need to be paid before launch. How about research into amateur-developed cold gas or hybrid oxidizer thrusters?
Development of a complementary ground "package" which could get prospective new satellite operators on the air for (pick a number -- I'm guessing < $200). Might not be a contest station, but would provide the early success to kindle interest in this aspect of the hobby.
If there is a serious show stopper in here somewhere, then we fully document and move on.
As others have noted, we are now a stop-gap in EMCOMM. We have plenty of 1st responders in our current society, but education and learning the technology has fallen by the wayside. Before long, no-one will know how to make the machines work anymore.[1] If we want to keep Amateur Radio relevant, we should focus on an under-served area that was part of our founding principles:
"(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of the art.
(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts."
We're sorely lacking in these areas, as evidenced by the plethora of new licensees who only know how to press the PTT on an FM rig. Real knowledge takes an investment of time and mentoring from those who have gone before. I do not see that your proposal encourages a new ham to build a microwave antenna, develop receivers and transmitters for our sparsely-used microwave bands, or debug why they can't hear or be heard on an amateur bird.
Sincerely,
--- Zach N0ZGO
[1] ST:TOS "The Cage"