On 2020-03-05 13:00, Hasan al-Basri wrote:
Since we were speaking of SSB SNR, the bandwidth would be similar. In our cases we use 2.2 kHz. I forgot to even mention it.
The ...and the point of the whole process was to keep it simple. The more precise, the more complex and the less likely anyone is going to bother.
Hello Hasan,
I definitely applaud your efforts to measure relative system performance, but I did want to make it clear to others on the list that there was another factor which needed to be taken into account when doing an apples-to-apples. This additional factor isn't too hard, when you understand why it matters.
Boltzman is not needed for that. We aren't doing EME. Sat ops are a relatively strong signal mode. It says a lot that many receive setups are performing so poorly that "rough and dirty" (and simple) approaches like I outlined can make a big difference in overall efficiency. I just hope that it helps people hear better. (and subsequently reduce their uplink power)
I also completely agree with you on the need for fewer alligators on the satellites. With GOLF, where we're building bigger vehicles with larger orbits and footprints, excessive uplink power becomes an even bigger issue for more simultaneous users.
That said, GOLF satellites will also incur more path loss, so getting LEO operators more familiar with the "down in the noise" issues will make for better MEO/HEO operators, too.
Keep up the good work! I enjoyed your video.
73,
--- Zach N0ZGO