The satellite could collect the individual uplink signals and package them in one downlink. One TDM downlink would use much less power than FDM downlinks and would fit in the bandwidth of existing amateur receivers. Once you have DSP in the satellite, there are a lot of possibilities.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Virgil Bierschwale" vbiersch@gmail.com To: "'John Stephensen'" kd6ozh@comcast.net; "'Clint Bradford'" clintbrad4d@earthlink.net; amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 01:52 UTC Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
I've enjoyed reading this segment and I wasn't going to touch it, but this one makes me want to chip in my two cents.
Granted, I'm not up to speed on what ya'll have done or what you haven't done.
But we used to use a ucc1 in the navy to receive messages.
http://www.virhistory.com/navy/rtty-mux-ucc1.htm
It would allow us to receive something like 16 or 32 separate traffic channels on one frequency.
Wouldn't it be possible to develop something like that in satellite communications?
I ask because if you were to do it, you could substantially increase the amount of channels that you could process?
Virgil N5IVV
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of John Stephensen Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:31 PM To: Clint Bradford; amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
If we want the most "bang for the buck", it would be something that supports the most QSOs per watt of solar power. Since most hams have computers, something that supports half a dozen PSK31 sessions would suffice. Given the new open-source voice codec you could also make something that supports multiple digital voice QSOs with less power than now required for analog FM or SSB.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Clint Bradford" clintbrad4d@earthlink.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org; amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 00:27 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
... launch opportunities are so rare that we ought to
fly the most capable equipment we can on those rare occasions when we can get a launch ...
Perhaps we should define, "most capable equipment." And we also need to define "bang for the buck."
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