If one looks at the bb archive in late July you will see a string titled "This Weekend in Minneapolis: Central States VHF Society Meeting". The subject of not having an S-band downlink on Eagle was thoroughly discussed by the likes of Bob McGwier, Tom Clarke, and Jim Sanford among others all before ballots for BOD's were due. You may not like the conclusions drawn from the previous discussion but the subject of not having an S-band downlink on Eagle is not new to this bulletin board.
Kevin Smith N3HKQ
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Eric H Christensen Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 8:24 PM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band and Eagle: an appeal for a higher leveldiscussion
Bruce, While you bring up some good points in your message I feel there are questions that remain in need of answering.
The first question that I have is where is all this data that was used to produce such a theory of S-band pollution being too great for a HEO? I've seen data that I agree with that says that S-band uplinks would essentially be deaf on a HEO due to the rise in the noise floor from all of the non-licensed networks and such but that noise floor comes from millions of such devices. One would never have to put up with that much interference at their home stations. Until I see research data that supports such a theory I cannot possibly stand behind such a decision to cripple our next satellite.
Why should we buy a product that doesn't meet our needs and wants? I certainly wouldn't go out and purchase anything just because someone else wanted me to. My hard earned money goes into the products that fulfill my wants, needs, and desires. With S-band going away, and another project possibly being scrubbed as well, I'm seriously considering throwing my support and money towards the P3E project which has an outstanding lineup of experimental bands along with the more traditional ones on board.
Too bad this information didn't come out earlier as I'm sure it would have been a great discussion piece for those that were running for Board positions. I wonder how many Board members would support the decision of taking S-band off the future birds. Members of the Board should take note and realize that their time is coming to end with these kind of decisions being made. We pay the money to support AMSAT now where is their support back to us?
Eric KF4OTN
Bruce Robertson wrote:
There has been a recent restatement of disappointment regarding the Eagle design committee's recent choice to use S band as an uplink not a
downlink.
Note that the next two HEO's scheduled to launch *will* have S band downlinks, so there's no worry that people like I, who live in radio quiet areas, will be unable to use our developing S band equipment in the
future.
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.
The design team have said again and again on this list that they would welcome contradicting evidence that is cogent, and I, for one, believe them. They're our volunteers, and they deserve our support. I can't
provide
that contradicting evidence: I'm not skilled or qualified. But I can
assess
an argument, and the responses so far have not been nearly as rigorous. They have amounted to "works for me", which I think misses the point.
Please, please, those of you who are qualified and competent and hold the opposing opinion, take the design committee at their word and assess their work, check their assumptions, present cogent opposing arguments. There is some thought that a dish antenna properly implemented will overcome the obstacles described by the design team. Let's model this. Or those who
live
in heavy 802.11b environments, do some experiements with terrestrial links (which I suppose could be assumed worse than earth/sky). Who knows? Maybe it's all like my last tax return, where a missed decimal point made me think I'd have to take out a second mortgage to pay our taxes :-) This
list
and the wiki exist so that we can undertake that sort of dialogue, and for my part, it is my favorite part of participation in AMSAT.
Some have suggested that Eagle fly with an S-band downlink on the off chance that it *does* work despite the theory; others, that we survey the members to see what they'd like. I fully support the design teams
rejection
of the former approach. Launch weight is very expensive and the kitchen sink approach is not to my mind sensible. As to the latter, a survey presumably pertains only to *working* bands, not ones that are polluted
out
of existance.
It's human nature for us more readily to see our misfortunes as caused by the malace of others, but I think we should strongly avoid terms like
"bait
and switch". We'll get much further if we all assume the goodwill of everyone involved.
73, Bruce VE9QRP _______________________________________________ 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