-----Original Message-----
From: "Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR]" kenneth.g.ransom@nasa.gov
Seems that IF only a transmitter was included then you must not have taken enough interest in seeing that more was included. Next time, you should be willing to step up and ensure that a transceiver operation is include. Try addressing the issue before the satellite leaves the launch pad. If you still have no results, then you have a platform to complain from.
I'm also a bit concerned regarding the comment about "our frequencies". Most of these satellites appear to be operating in the UHF spectrum which amateur radio is not the primary or only group with allocations.
Kenneth - N5VHO
Well said Ken! Grumping about after the fact serves no useful purpose, and some of the comments I've seen seem very selfish and "me first". While it would be nice to have an open two-way package on RS-30, the designers and builders of that satellite in reality owe us nothing.
Perhaps an interested group could offer to build or sponsor a transponder on the _next_ launch to that orbit?
73, Drew KO4MA
Hi Drew,
Good idea - but the lines of communications to the Russian satellite folks don't appear to be open to allow discussion about any collaboration. To my knowledge, there has never been any collaboration - so maybe the time is right if ITAR doesn't kill that idea off at the knees.
Perhaps a serious initiative by the AMSAT-NA Board might produce the dialog permitting a joint Amateur satellite venture. There is the AMSAT-R but I'm not sure how active they are. Nothing ventured - nothing gained!!
I would welcome any of our Russian Amateur (especially AMSAT-R) readers of this thread to weight in with their thoughts regarding any future collaboration.
Yes indeed - a very nice orbit!!
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
Well said Ken! Grumping about after the fact serves no useful purpose, and some of the comments I've seen seem very selfish and "me first". While it would be nice to have an open two-way package on RS-30, the designers and builders of that satellite in reality owe us nothing.
Perhaps an interested group could offer to build or sponsor a transponder on the _next_ launch to that orbit?
73, Drew KO4MA
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
I concur with Ken and Drew. This constant griping and complaining about cubesats, FM sats, lack of HEO sats etc. etc. serves absolutely no purpose. The sense of "entitlement" that some op's tend to display is embarassing to the hobby as a whole. I'm constantly hearing how we need to expose more young people to the hobby. What better way to do that than to help college students out with a cubesat project? Should the prescense of a transponder be a prerequisite for our knowledge and resources? Why does there automatically have to be something in it for "us"? 73, Michael, W4HIJ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Glasbrenner" glasbrenner@mindspring.com To: "Ransom,Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR]" kenneth.g.ransom@nasa.gov; amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 11:06 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: JUBILEE and other frustrations
-----Original Message-----
From: "Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR]" kenneth.g.ransom@nasa.gov
Seems that IF only a transmitter was included then you must not have taken enough interest in seeing that more was included. Next time, you should be willing to step up and ensure that a transceiver operation is include. Try addressing the issue before the satellite leaves the launch pad. If you still have no results, then you have a platform to complain from.
I'm also a bit concerned regarding the comment about "our frequencies". Most of these satellites appear to be operating in the UHF spectrum which amateur radio is not the primary or only group with allocations.
Kenneth - N5VHO
Well said Ken! Grumping about after the fact serves no useful purpose, and some of the comments I've seen seem very selfish and "me first". While it would be nice to have an open two-way package on RS-30, the designers and builders of that satellite in reality owe us nothing.
Perhaps an interested group could offer to build or sponsor a transponder on the _next_ launch to that orbit?
73, Drew KO4MA
At 09:32 AM 5/30/2008, Michael Tondee wrote:
young people to the hobby. What better way to do that than to help college students out with a cubesat project? Should the prescense of a transponder be a prerequisite for our knowledge and resources? Why does there automatically have to be something in it for "us"?
And if we want a transponder (linear, FM or whatever) on the bird, why not offer one for the students to integrate in, as others have suggested? They may take it up, they may decide they can't afford the space or power budget or time and not take up the offer, but at least we've lowered the barrier to getting a transponder for general amateur use on board.
73 de VK3JED http://vkradio.com
participants (4)
-
Andrew Glasbrenner -
Bill Ress -
Michael Tondee -
Tony Langdon