On 10/15/2012 8:26 PM, Gus 8P6SM wrote:
On 10/15/2012 05:55 PM, Clayton Coleman wrote:
I don't agree with these elitist arguments for intentionally making things difficult. This "anti-easy-sat" mentality doesn't buy us anything. Let the dead horse decompose.
I don't think anybody actually wants to make things deliberately harder. But hams have always pushed the boundaries. Going further with less power and less bandwidth. Fooling around with useless frequencies above 1 MHz. And so forth. And the satellite operator is no different.
It may be easy to reliably work a future generation of satellites with an HT and a rubber duckie. But that won't be challenging. And we (the operators) won't be learning anything new.
But instead folks are promoting an anachronism. They're discussing learning something new at the same time saying we should be using a technology that has been in use since the 1960s.
So then instead of focusing on linear transponders how about deploying HSMM nodes into space, TDMA, or DMR technology? (No idea how feasible any of of this is)
How about something that supports TCP/IP? People were discussing how a AMSAT could generate interest in a kickstarter for a HEO? Promise a bunch of hackers and geeks that with a small donation, sitting for a ham radio test, and buying some kind of kit, they can get a (slow) network connection in far flung locations I'm feel fairly confident that they would start hurling their wallets at you screaming "Shut up and take my money!"
However, the SSB mafia is firmly entrenched in their ways and will simultaneously bemoan the easy sats, yet pooh-pooh "hard sats" that won't support the divine mode.