I use the 910 with one of the KJ6KO 60 watt amps to 50ft of lmr400uf, and a m2 35 element yagi. Circular would be better, but I also use the antenna system for terrestrial SSB work. Fine tuning the uplink is very important on L band. Due probably to radio inaccuracies, and maybe on the spacecraft, I have to offset the uplink by about 3 khz.

73, Drew KO4MA

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Heck" jimlist@milnet.uk.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:05 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Use of ICOM 910 for AO-51 L-Band BBS Uplink?

Hi Folks,

I would be interested to know if anyone is using an ICOM 910 with the L-Band module for Ao-51 uplink on the BBS? (The optional L-Band unit for the 910 runs 10 watts according to the book).

I am particularly interested to know what type/gain of antenna I would need to get a reliable up link. I am planning to use about 20 metres of Ecoflex 10, which will introduce a loss of something like 3 Dbs.

I know that the LBand/Digital up link is currently off, just gettting ready for the next 'on' period!

73s

Jim G3WGM

---

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

Hello Jim

I use a 910 on L band, it drives a KJ6KO amp at about 60-70W.  This goes through about 17M of LMR400, so I am loosing a few db there.  Antenna is a homebrew 16 turn RHCP helix.  I should try AO-51 without the amp, just to see what happens.  I'll send you picture in a separate email.

73 Bob W7LRD

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Heck" jimlist@milnet.uk.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:05:30 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: [amsat-bb]  Use of ICOM 910 for AO-51 L-Band BBS Uplink?

Hi Folks,

I would be interested to know if anyone is using an ICOM 910 with the L-Band module for Ao-51 uplink on the BBS? (The optional L-Band unit for the 910 runs 10 watts according to the book).

I am particularly interested to know what type/gain of antenna I would need to get a reliable up link. I am planning to use about 20 metres of Ecoflex 10, which will introduce a loss of something like 3 Dbs.

I know that the LBand/Digital up link is currently off, just gettting ready for the next 'on' period!

73s

Jim G3WGM

_______________________________________________ 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

Mr. Mann and all,   I’m not sure I have a dog in this hunt, but I am an AMSAT member and enthusiastic user of the amateur satellites and the ISS amateur station.   Before responding specifically to your most recent post, I would like to ask anyAMSAT Board of Directors candidate who reads this to weigh in on your ideas over the next few days because I have not cast my ballot yet, and I’d like to hear candidates’ thoughts so I can make a more-informed voting decision.   Now … on to my response to your most recent post.   I find myself believing your reasoning and arguments to be self-serving because last October, I heard Richard Garriott’s side of a conversation with you during his stay on the ISS, when it was apparent that you used precious time available for other amateurs to make contact with Richard to ask whether you could transmit SSTV images to the ISS.   Nowhere in the multiple posts you have made over the past week have you addressed the impact of your SSTV proposal(s) on the existing U/V voice repeater and/or the VHF packet station on the ISS. I presume that, since you propose (in this post I’m responding to) only replacing/upgrading hardware necessary to make the existing SSTV system operational, that its time on the air will mean no packet station and no opportunity for voice contacts, either with the crew or with other amateurs via the repeater. We all have our interests and preferences. Mine, as it relates to the use of the amateur radio gear aboard the ISS, is two-way communication with other amateurs – including ISS crew members and private citizens who are licensed amateurs and who visit the ISS. As is the case with SSTV transmissions, those who choose to do so can use ground stations as you described to monitor voice communications, and (as you pointed out with SSTV) free software is available to anyone for use in setting up a sound-card-based TNC to copy and decode packet radio from the ISS. From here, as a result, you seem to be advocating a trade-off in operational modes with an eye toward increasing SSTV operation using the existing gear. So unless I’m missing something, your recent post argues only for a mode change, not an increase in operating opportunities.   Further, if that is, indeed, the case, then the biggest bang for the buck – it seems to me, at least – would be to not spend any money and encourage ARISS members to work with the appropriate officials in the various space agencies to take advantage of remaining voice and packet opportunities. Of course, that won’t bring SSTV back to the ISS station. But it also won’t cost a dime moving forward. Free makes for the biggest bang (i.e., no bucks involved).   Like you, I would like to see a new satellite with SSTV, FM-crossband-repeater and V/U SSB transponders placed into a higher orbit. More than a few times, since hearing about China’s plans for the XW-1 satellite, I have found myself thinking how cool it would be for a satellite with its capabilities to be placed in an AO-7-like (or even slightly higher) orbit. In that regard, I don’t disagree with arguments that suggest finding some way to make whatever form SuitSat-2 ultimately takes stay in orbit and remain active as long as possible.   BUT (there’s always a but… hihi) I don’t see the wisdom in scrapping plans to place another  satellite with multiple-mode capabilities in operation – regardless of the duration – just to get the ISS station running SSTV again – especially when the station is fully capable of providing two-way voice and packet contacts in its current form.   In a previous post, you provided other options for ARISS projects, in addition to repair of the gear necessary to operate SSTV with the current station.  Two days ago, the following statements appeared in the same post from you:   “The longest it required from Theory to Switch-on from Mir for any project was 15 months.  “With ISS it does take longer.  The average time is (ouch) 4-7 years.  “The ISS laptop project required 9 years.  “The SpaceCam1 project, from Beta software demo to switch on was 7 years.”   And   “We have 5-6 years left of ISS.  We need to make the best of what little time we have left.”   Unless I’m missing something, and if the numbers you state in each section of your Aug. 18 post are accurate, it appears to me as though there’s no guarantee there will be enough time to achieve anything you advocate because, as I understand it from your posts, these proposals would pretty much start from scratch in moving through the system from proposal to delivery to the ISS and activation.   I am a relative newcomer to “space radio,” having made my first-ever satellite contact on June 28, 2008. That being said, I believe that an AMSAT decision to abandon SuitSat-2 so that it could focus on getting the necessary hardware to the ISS to add SSTV to the currently operating station would be a distinct disservice to the AMSAT membership and the amateur radio community.   Before closing, I would like to express my personal gratitude to everyone associated with ARISS for providing the opportunities it does. I discovered all of our other currently operational satellites only because I learned it was possible to make two-way contacts with the crew aboard the ISS. I had been totally off the air and away from amateur radio from early 1992 until May 2007. It was another year before I learned that ARISS existed, and I set out with the goal of working an astronaut on the ISS with a handheld station. I did that with Mike Fincke several months ago, after I was fortunate enough to have a contact with Richard on his last day aboard the ISS. I did not use my handheld station for that contact because I didn't think 5 watts would break the pileup … hihi. However, early in the morning of the day I worked Richard, I stood in my front yard and pointed my Elk antenna at the then-visible ISS and listened to Richard work two amateurs I have developed friendships with over the past 14 months – N8MH and WB2OQQ. I wouldn’t trade that for any SSTV transmission.   73 to all,

Tim – N3TL Athens, Ga.– EM84ha

________________________________ From: MM ka1rrw@yahoo.com To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 3:39:40 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS

Don’t Fly Suit-Sat to the International Space Station

The International Space Station will be retired in 20015-2016. We do not have much time left, before NASA pulls the plug! We need your help to convince NASA, ESA and RSA to send more Long term educational projects to ISS and to not send short term disposable Toss-Satellites projects such as the Suit-Sat-2 to ISS.

In this document I will go over several reasons why Suit-Sat-2 is the wrong project for the International Space Station (ISS) and offer suggestions on how to best use Suit-Sat-2.

Introduction:    3 What is Suit-Sat-2:    4 Reason #1: The Orbit:    5 Reason #2:  Access Window Time:    5 Reason #3:  Satellite Footprints:    6 Reason #4:  Suit-Sat-2 needs a new container:    7 Batteries:    7 Solar Panels:    7 Battery Charging System:    7 Antenna System:    7 Satellite flight container:    7 Reason #5: Launch Date January 2010:    8 Reason #6: The ISS is the wrong place for Suit-Sat-2 :    9 What can we do with Suit-Sat-2 ?    10 Long Term Project Suggestions:    11 SpaceCam1 meets our Long term goals:    12 SpaceCam1, Best Bang for the Buck:    13 Current ISS Amateur Radio hardware Status:    15 November 2000 Ericsson System:    15 February 2003 Packcom Modem:    15 January 2002 Antenna Systems:    16 December 2003 Kenwood TM-D700:    17 October 2005 SpaceCam1 and Suit-Sat1:    17 February 2008 Columbus Antennas:    18 Unused Amateur Radio hardware on ISS:    19 Unused Coax Cables:    19 Unused Antennas:    19 Unused Radios (Ericsson UHF Transceiver):    20 Suit-Sat-1 Burns up:    20 Summary:    20 VHF Society Meeting July 24, 2009    21

Introduction: This is an open letter to representatives of the organizations and technical communities, including: NASA, European Space Agency, Russian Space Agency, AMSAT, ARISS, ARRL, Amateur Radio community and the Short Wave Listener community.

Do you want to see more Education Amateur Radio activity from ISS?

If so, then we need to take decisive action now before we lose International Space Station completely.

In this memo I am going to discuss the reasons we should change the launch vehicle for the Suit-Stat-2 project from the low orbiting International Space Station (ISS) to different unmanned rocket launch vehicle and how we can all benefit from the changes.

What is Suit-Sat-2:

Suit-Sat-2 is a small satellite radio about the size of a toaster.  It will allow amateur radio operators and Short waver listeners to monitor the signals from the satellite while it’s in orbit. The exact specifications of Suit-Sat-2 have not been published.  Suit-Sat-2 may contain the following features:

Slow Scan Image Transmitter. FM Cross band transponder. SSB mode U/V transponder.

Suit-Sat-2 will run on batters and a solar panel while in orbit.  This will extend the life of the operational satellite.  The original Suit-Sat-1 satellite only had batteries, no solar panel and was only operational for 3 weeks.

The original plan was to send the Suit-Sat-2 hardware to the International Space Station and then stuff the hardware into Space suite that is scheduled for disposal.  The satellite radio, plus the space suit is how Suit-Sat got its name.

Unfortunately Suit-Sat-2 missed its original planed hardware completed date for the fall of 2007 and also missed a rocket launch opportunity in 2008.  As of July 2009 the hardware for Suit-Sat-2 is still being developed.

In the summer of 2009 ARISS was informed that ISS could not wait any longer and disposed of the extra empty space suit.  Now the ARISS hardware team needs to redesign Suit-Sat-2 to fly in its own satellite container, which has not been designed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuitSat_2

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/11/09/101/

Some information about its predecessor Suit Sat-1 http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/satellites/satInfo.php?satID=24&retURL=sa...

Reason #1: The Orbit: The Orbit of the International Space Station is approximately 250 miles (350 kilometers).  This is actually a very low orbit.  Any satellite launched into this type of orbit will re-enter the earth’s atmosphere and burn-up in less than 1 year.  The only reason the ISS has not burnt up is because NASA keeps sending more fuel to the space station and they use that to keep boosting the Station back up to 250 mile orbit.

If the Suit-Sat-2 satellite is launched from the ISS orbit, it will simply burn up in 6-12 months.  Suit-Sat-2 needs to be in a high orbit such as the common 700-800 kilometer orbit, which will allow the satellite to orbit for decades. Reason #2:  Access Window Time: The Access Windows Time, is how many minutes can you use Suit-Sat-2 transceivers when it is in range of you location.  At an altitude of 250 miles your maximum access window will be 10 minutes per orbit.  Depending on where you live you will have orbit access 4-6 times per day.  Only a few of these orbits will approach the maximum 10 minute access window time.  Most of the orbits will be very low on the horizon and your access window time will be shorter.

If Suit-Sat-2 was paced a more common higher orbit such as the commonly used 700-800 kilometer orbit, your maximum access window time will be in the 15-18 minute range.

Reason #3:  Satellite Footprints: The higher the altitude of the satellite, the greater the Radio link coverage will be.  From ISS, the maximum footprint size is approximately 1500 mile radius or a diameter of 3000 miles across.  In simple terms this means that two radio stations 2000 – 3000 miles apart can communication via the satellite when it is in-between them.  Suit-Sat-2 will have a smaller foot print at 250 miles then it will at 800 km.  The Suit-Sat-2 project will not have enough altitude to support communications links between the USA and Europe.

During the short 6-12 month life of Suit-Stat2, the orbit will decrease in altitude daily.  After a few months the size of the Satellite footprint will be noticeably smaller.  The Radio link coverage will also decreases daily.  The Satellite Access Window time will decrease daily as Suit-Sat-2 gets closer to the ground.

Reason #4:  Suit-Sat-2 needs a new container: Suit-Sat-2 was designed to be stuffed into a used space suit.  The Ariss Hardware team now needs to completely redesign the Suit-Sat-2 project to fit into a yet-to-be-designed satellite container box.  This will not be a simple task.

Areas that need to be redesigned for Suit-Sat2: Batteries: The original design called for large 24 volt batteries located inside the space suite.  New smaller Space flight qualified batteries will need to located that will fit into the smaller satellite container. A completely new power budget will need to be calculated.  The old batteries cannot be reused. Solar Panels: The old panels were going to be tied to the back of the space suit.  The new panels will need to be custom designed to fit onto the exterior of the new 6 sided satellite box. The old panels cannot be reused. Battery Charging System: Since we now have to use New Batteries and a new yet-to-be-designed Solar panel system, we will now have to redesign the existing SuitSat-2 charging system to accommodate the new changes.  The whole power budget has just changed. Antenna System: The Suit-Sat-2 antennas system was designed to be tied to the space suit.  It seems to make sense since you have to build a new satellite box, new batteries, new solar panels, you may as well build a better antenna system, rather than bungee cording the antenna to the box.  This means a new Antenna system designed from scratch. Satellite flight container: Suit-Sat-2 was originally designed to be stuffed into an old space suit that has reached the end of useful life.  RSA could not wait any longer for Suit-Sat-2 so they have made plans to stuff the suits into a Russian Progress cargo rocket and let the Progress trash truck burn up on re-entry.

The ARISS Hardware team now needs to design a new box to hold their satellite transceiver board, etc. The box will need to be strong enough to be placed inside a Russian Progress rocket for its flight to ISS.  The unmanned cargo rocket will exceed 5-9 G’s of force.  Remember the satellite A0-40?  The AO-40 Satellite frame had to be completely re-designed after the G-Force load numbers changed.  If you make the frame too light, components could break loose during the launching phase.

Reason #5: Launch Date January 2010:

The Suit-Sat-2 project was first presented to the ARISS team in January 2006.  The project was headed by AMSAT Director and ARISS Hardware Project manager Lou McFadin.  In October 2006 ARISS publicly present the project at the ARISS International meeting in San Francisco. At the ARISS Team meeting in 2006, Lou McFadin said we could be ready to launch Suit-Sat-2 in the fall (2007). http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/11/09/101/

Comments from McFadin at the ARISS meeting in 2006 An ISS crew could launch SuitSat-2 during a spacewalk as early as next fall. "We're talking about October of next year [2007], in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of Sputnik-1," ***

Here were are in July 2009 and the 18 month project is now into its 30+ month of development.  The Suit-Sat-2 project has missed 2 launch opportunities and is ready to miss it’s third. As of July 2009 status of the Suit-Sat-2 hardware still seems to be at the prototype level, with a considerable amount of work to be done before the transceiver becomes flight ready.  See the attached memo from the July 24-25 the Central States VHF Society meeting.

In order to meet the January 2010 launch date, you need to deliver a few flight qualified versions of your project to the Russian space agency a few Months BEFORE flight.

In my professional opinion, the Suit-Sat-2 transceiver system will require 6-9 more months of development time.  In my estimate the earliest time we could expect to see a pair of electronics modules of “Flight Quality” would be the end of 2010.

The Satellite box does not exist and would required 18-24 months to design and build a container that will survive Proton Rocket G-forces of 5-9g’s.  All Amateur Radio hardware is set to the ISS via the Russian unmanned Proton Cargo rocket.  The cargo rockets are exposed to much higher G-forces than the manned rocket launches.

If the Ariss Hardware team did not have to build the Satellite container for Suit-Sat-2, they would still miss the January 2010 Progress rocket launch by a full year.

Reason #6: The ISS is the wrong place for Suit-Sat-2 :

The ISS will be retired in 5-6 years. We only get approximately 1 launch opportunity per year for Amateur Radio projects, and we have missed a few since we did not have any ARISS approved projects ready for flight.  Short term projects such as Suit-Sat-1 and Suit-Sat-2 have caused long term projects to get bumped off the project consideration lists.

We need more "Longer" term projects on ISS that reach a greater audience.  There are over 2 million licensed Amateur Radio users worldwide and there are over 10 million Short Wave Listeners (SWL).  We need projects that can reach the majority of the people with the ability to listen to our educational projects.  Projects should not be designed just for the Amateur Radio operators; we also need to take into consideration the educational opportunity to show the Short Wave Listeners public what we can do.

Short term projects such as Toss-Satellites (Suit-Sat-2 ) are a waist of a very valuable ISS resource.  With the few launch opportunity remaining we need to focus all of our attention on longer term project that will cover the largest possible number of users.

The number of users and the short duration of the Suit-Sat-2 mission do not justify the amount resources required for such a short run project.  Instead we need to use the ISS launch opportunity to fly project that will last for years and proved easy access to millions of users.

Toss-Satellite projects have no real benefit to the ISS crew.  Once the project is tossed out the door the crew has nothing more to do with the project.

What can we do with Suit-Sat-2 ?

The long term plan for Suit-Sat-2 was to use it as a Free flying micro satellite that is part of other unmanned launches into higher orbits.  Let’s go for the long term Plan.  The AMSAT Corporation said they were looking for projects that can fly quickly when a launch opportunity arrives.  I believe that the Suit-Sat-2 project can be boxed up and made viable for launches in the 2013 time frame.  The AMSAT Corporation and ARISS should start looking for higher altitude unmanned rockets in that time frame to place Suit-Sat-2 in a more functional orbit.

The flights in the 2013 time frame will also provide ARISS/AMSAT with the time they require to redesign Suit-Sat-2 to fit into its own satellite box.

Long Term Project Suggestions: Here are a few long term project suggestions, which have been reject by the ARISS-Project and Selection committee.

VOX Box Replacement to enable continuous Slow Scan TV (SpaceCam1). Kantronics KPC-9612 Mail box (supports 8+ simultaneous users) Icom ID-800 D-Star Analog/digital radio system.

Out of all of these projects the SpaceCam1 project has the ability to reach Millions of listeners around the world.  The reason we do not see much SSTV from the International Space Station is because the VOX box that connects between the Laptop computer and Kenwood TM-D700 radio is defective.

The VOX box gets its 12 volt power from wires coming out of a modified TM-D700.  When the VOX box hears Audio coming from the Laptop, it sends a signal to tell the TM-D700 to transmit (which it does).  Unfortunately, the stray RF energy coming through the power wires from the TM-D700  into the VOX Box, jam the transmitting Op-amp inside the VOX box which caused the radio to get stuck in the transmitting mode.

The defective VOX box is preventing us from seeing an SSTV from the Laptop SpaceCam1 application.  The SpaceCam1 application has the ability to send over 300 SSTV images per day (Live or from Disk).

The ISS crew does have a backup system called the VCH1-Communicator.  This is a big microphone with a built-in SSTV coded/decoder (just like your camera on a cell phone).  For safety reason the ISS crew is only allowed to run the VCH1 on batteries (4 x AA batteries).  Spare batteries are in very short supply.  The VCH1 is power hungry and will eat a good set of AA batteries in a few hours.

SpaceCam1 meets our Long term goals:

What is SpaceCam1? SpaceCam1 is a very simple software application that runs on a typical windows laptop computer.  The software will convert any JPG or BMP image into a format that can be sent over a simple radio voice channel.  The images in SSTV format, can be easily decoded with free /shareware software and a laptop.  The only other hardware you need is a simple scanner (Police Scanners or any radio receiver that can receive FM signals on the 145.800 MHz radio frequency)

The MarexMG team installed a hardware version of SpaceCam1 on the Russian Space Satiation Mir in 1998-2000.  The Mir system took 20,000 images and sent them Earth during the projects 2 years of activity.  The MarexMG SSTV project only required 18 months from Theory to Switch On, from the Russian Space Station.  The project was so successful that the RSA asked the MarexMG team to build a new system for the International Space Station.

MarexMG Currently has SpaceCam1 already installed in tested on board the International Space Station.  We have received a few hundred images from SpaceCam1 already.  Please check out the links below.

Here are some Images from the MarexMG SpaceCam1 project, taken on board the International Space Station. http://www.issspacecam.org/SSTVProject/BestSC/index.htm

The SpaceCam1 project has had some success on the International Space Station.  However, the interface cable that connects between the laptop computer and the Kenwood TM-D700 radio has a flawed design that is preventing us from using any computer-to-radio applications for more than a few minutes at a time.  The interface cable is called a Vox Box.  The Vox Box is responsible for turning radio transmitter On and OFF.  Due to a problem with RF interference the Vox Box only turns the transmitter ON and will not turn the transmitter OFF.

Vox Box link http://www.marexmg.org/hardware/voxbox.html

The MarexMG team has proposed a replacement VOX Box system that should resolve all of the RF interference problems.  The Vox Box we have chosen is an Off-The-Shelf produce in which over 5000 units have been sold.  The manufacture claims there have been no reported problems of RF interference causing their VOX Box to get stuck in the transmitting mode.

SpaceCam1, Best Bang for the Buck:

The SpaceCam1 project will provide the greatest benefit to the Amateur Radio Satellite community and the Short Wave Listener community of all of the currently suggested Amateur Radio projects planned for ISS.

The hardware required to hear SpaceCam1 and decode the SSTV images is readily available.  Most Short Wave Listener's already have a basic FM receiver  and antenna that can receive the SSTV downlink frequency 145.800 Mhz.

The Image decoding software is available from multiple web sites as Share Ware and Free Ware.

SpaceCam1 can be left running unattended on board ISS for weeks at a time.  This will allow the word to spread and encourage more people to tune in and see the crew selected and live images coming down from ISS.

Schools from around the world will setup radio receiving stations at their homes and schools to be the first to receive the new batch of images transmitted that day.

In order to Re-Active SpaceCam1 we will need your help.  We need to replace the old Vox box with the new USB Vox Box.

The new USB Vox Box will allows the Amateur Radio community and the Short-wave-listeners community to be able to receive up to 250+ images per day from the International Space Station. Amateur Radio stations will also be allowed to Send images to ISS.  SpaceCam1 also included a built-in image Repeater, which can retransmit from orbit.

Example:

ISS is in orbit 250 miles over the city of Chicago.  An Amateur Radio station in Boston MA sends an image to SpaceCam1-Image-Repeater on board ISS.  The Image Repeater then retransmits the image.  Most of the Amateur Radio stations and Short Wave listeners on that frequency within 1000  miles (1600 kilometers) of Chicago will be able to see the Repeated image from Boston.

Add USB link here

http://www.marexmg.org/pressrelease/newsrelease10192005.html

Current ISS Amateur Radio hardware Status:

November 2000 Ericsson System: The First Crew arrives in ISS.  A few months later Sergei K. Krikalev, call sign U5MIR was on the air using an Ericsson HT radio system.  Krikalev was allowed to use and existing Un-used antenna for the Amateur Radio system. The first packet mail modem for the Ericsson system failed due to a bad battery.  The ROM chip was never configured with the correct boot up settings.

Ericcson HT link http://www.marexmg.org/hardware/ericcson.html

February 2003 Packcom Modem: A backup packet mail modem arrived on ISS.  The ISS crew used the Packet mailbox to send mail to Amateur Radio stations worldwide.  The system was used for approximately 9 months.  The last 2 months the modem began to lock up frequently.  The system was replaced by the Kenwood TM-D700 in December 2003.

The Ericsson HTs were retired in December 2003 and have since been discarded.

January 2002 Antenna Systems: The ARISS designed antenna systems are installed on ISS Now we have the ability to run more projects at the same time.

Current antennas systems: (1) Mono band 2-meter (147 mc) The Sirrus antenna system mounted on the Zarya module.  This antenna was connected to the Amateur Radio Ericsson 2-meter Voice/Packet station (2000 - 2003) This antenna is not currently being used, however it may be reassigned to a commercial telemetry system in the near future.

ARISS Multi Band antenna project. This project includes 4 new coax cable runs through the hull of the Service module, with 4 antenna systems attached.  The 4 new antenna systems provided us with the equivalent of 11 new antennas.

One of the cables is connected to the Amateur Radio project (Kenwood TM-D700).  The antennas WA-2 and WA-4 are not used and are available for future Amateur Radio projects. The antenna WA-3 was assigned to some type of TV system for monitoring signals from remote RF cameras.  I do not have any more details on this hardware.

Antenna WA-1 supports (145 MHz, 438 MHz, 1296 MHz and 2400 MHz) (TM-D700) Antenna WA-2 supports (145 MHz, 438 MHz, 1296 MHz and 2400 MHz) Unused Antenna WA-3 supports (145 MHz, 438 MHz, 1296 MHz and 2400 MHz) RSA TV System Antenna WA-4 supports (28 MHz, 1296 MHz and 2400 MHz) Unused

Antenna link http://www.marexmg.org/hardware/antennas.html

December 2003 Kenwood TM-D700: Kenwood TM-D700 project arrives.

Due to user configurable software setting error, the Packet Mailbox feature was rendered unusable.  The Digital Repeater mode called Digi-peating was still functional.  The user configurable software changes to correct the Packet Mailbox problem were never implemented.

While Testing SpaceCam1 SSTV with the Kenwood TM-D700 radio overheated in August 2006.  It was determined the VOX Box caused the radio to repeatedly get stuck in the transmitting mode over night.  The next day, the ISS crew reported the radio was hot and would not respond to button or microphone commands until after the power cord was disconnected and reconnected.

Kenwood Link http://www.marexmg.org/hardware/kenwood.html

October 2005 SpaceCam1 and Suit-Sat1: Two projects were delivered to ISS this month.  The Laptop for the Amateur Radio station and SpaceCam, which was scheduled for 2001, did not arrive until 2008.  SpaceCam1 was activated for a few weeks in August 2006 and again in October 2008.

Suit-Sat-1 was tossed out the air lock in February 2006 for a 3-week mission.

February 2008 Columbus Antennas: Two more antennas arrive via the Columbus module.  Antennas designed for L and S bands. These two antennas can also be used for Amateur Radio projects.  However there are no “Viable” projects officially scheduled for these antennas.

September 2008 Progress M-65 cargo rocket delivers backup Kenwood TM-D700 to ISS.  It also brings the Kenwood VC-H1 Communicator (a SSTV microphone) and a backup VOX Box for SSTV to laptop operations.

It should be noted that a fixed version of TM-D700 Email software had been successfully tested on Earth, and a subset of the parameters were also tested on ISS.  The new TM-D700 Email software settings worked, however it was never loaded into the replacement Kenwood TM-D700. The Packet Email on the TM-D700 is still not usable.

The Backup VOX box was sent to ISS to replace the defective VOX box. The Backup VOX box is identical to the VOX box that caused problems in 2006.  The New VOX box was never modified to resolve the RF locking problems reported in 2006.  When the New Laptop was connected to the New Kenwood TM-D700 with the New VOX Box in October 2008, there were no surprises when the TM-D700 got stuck in Transmitting mode Again.

Unused Amateur Radio hardware on ISS:

Unused Coax Cables: Total Hull Feed through Coax Cables = 6

Only 1 coax cable, which is attached to the WA-1 antenna, is currently being used. It is currently connected to the Kenwood TM-D700 Project.  The other 5 coax cables are not being used.  There are no long-term viable projects scheduled for these unused resources. Unused Antennas: Total Installed Antennas that can be used for Amateur Radio Projects = 6 to 14

Only the WA-1 Antenna is being used by an Amateur Radio project.  The WA-1 antenna supports (145 MHz, 438 MHz, 1296 MHz and 2400 MHz).  Only the 145 MHz and 438 MHz and 1296 MHz antennas are being used by the Kenwood TM-D700 project. The remaining 13 antennas that could be used for Amateur Radio projects are not being used, and there are no long term viable  projects scheduled for these unused resources.

Have you heard the term “If you snooze, You loose”? Since we only had 1 working transceiver on ISS, the other antennas are slowly being reassigned to other projects.

The Sirrus antenna is in the process of being assigned to a  new project.  The Amateur Radio Ericsson project was disconnected in December 2003.  No other amateur radio projects were available to use this port so it was reassigned.

The WA-3 Antennas has been reassigned to some type of Video system. (Note some of the coax cables are attached to Multiple Band Radio antennas)

Unused Radios (Ericsson UHF Transceiver): Ericsson UHF Transceivers System was actually two different radio systems.  The package contained a VHF transceiver systems and a UHF transceiver system.  Both systems arrived on ISS in 2000.  Only the VHF system was ever deployed.  The Ericsson UHF and VHF transceiver have since been discarded.

Suit-Sat-1 Burns up:

Suit-Sat-1 was launched on Feb 4, 2006. The damaged radio was able to send out a weak audio and an SSTV image signal for approximately 3 weeks.  Only Amateur Radio stations with high gain antennas systems we able to detect the damaged transmitter (you needed an Antenna System with 12-dBd gain or more).

On the 7th of September, 2006 at 16:00 GMT, Suit-Sat-1 re-entered the Earth's atmosphere over the Southern Ocean at 110.4° East longitude and 46.3° South latitude.

Total transmitter life 3 weeks. Total flight time approximately 7 months

Summary: Short Term Satellites such Suit-Sat-2 are a waist of ISS Resources. Our unused antennas are being reassigned to other Non-Amateur Radio projects. The SpaceCam1 SSTV project can be reactivated with a minimal amount of effort and will provide a huge benefit to the Amateur Radio and Short Waver Listener community.

We need your support to encourage NASA, ESA and RSA to cancel Suit-Sat-2

Sincerely

Miles Mann Wf1f@marexmg.org

VHF Society Meeting July 24, 2009 From the Amsat.org web page Operational Suit-Sat-2 Prototype Hits the Road - Seen in Chicago On July 24-25 the Central States VHF Society hosted their 43rd Conference in the Chicago area. The event attracted radio Amateurs interested in experimentation with weak signal VHF/UHF, microwave, terrestrial and space communications, and EME.

SuitSat-2 System Engineer Gould WA4SXM was at the Conference with a functioning prototype of the SuitSat-2 hardware, antennas, and initial software. The success of the Phoenix ARISS system integration meeting held July 10-12 was evident as SuitSat-2 transmitted live signals that everyone at the Conference could monitor on 145.920 (BPSK), 145.930 (Xponder), 145.939 (CW) and 145.950 MHz (FM audio and SSTV).

The SSTV subsystem was transmitting live pictures in Robot36 mode captured by the cameras. Reminder: if your computer SSTV capture software such as MMSSTV is functional viewing existing terrestrial SSTV transmissions you will be ready to receive SuitSat-2 video.

Earlier this month at the Phoenix integration meeting the command receiver boards were assembled and ready for testing. The command receiver and receiver boards were integrated for the first time this weekend. The team was able to report that the receiver is now providing good input to the SDX transponder and as a result the transponder became operational and produced a signal on the output with the CW, FM and BPSK signals. The transmitter was drawing 330mA and produced +25dBm output in the test configuration.

System engineering progress was also report on additional issues: •    SPI communications between the IHU and SDX were debugged •    Battery charging circuit undergoing testing •    Space frame issues have started to be addressed to replace the missing suit. Due to storage considerations on the International Space Station, the two surplus Orlan space suits in storage on the International Space Station were discarded via the Progress Cargo Vessel. One of these suits was to be used to house the electronics for the upcoming SuitSat-2 mission where the batteries were to be mounted inside the suit, solar panels attached to the extremities with the electronics, video cameras and antenna mounted on the helmet by the ISS crew prior to deployment during an EVA. The Progress vehicle, with the suits included, has undocked from ISS.

The ARISS International Team has been informed that there is still space available for shipment of the SuitSat-2 electronics on the projected cargo flight to the Space Station in January 2010 and the EVA scheduled for April 2010 still has a 'SuitSat-2' deployment scheduled.

Consequently, the AMSAT team developing SuitSat-2 electronics on behalf of ARISS International is focusing on completing development in anticipation that deployment will still take place in Spring 2010 using a new structure to house it. In addition, the experiment being developed by Russia's Kursk State University is still expected to be integrated into the electronics once the US produced equipment is delivered to Russia this fall. Discussions are currently taking place between Russian ARISS members and the AMSAT project managers concerning the design of the new structure and where it will be constructed with these decisions to be made in the next few weeks.

The removal of the Orlan space suits from ISS removes the 'Suit' component of this deployment and at some point a new project name will be used to reflect the change in configuration. However, the significant importance of this project to both ARISS and AMSAT is not diminished.

ARISS sees this mission as an important component of education outreach as it will provide an opportunity for students around the world to listen for recorded greetings from space as well as learn about tracking spacecraft in orbit.

Meanwhile, the deployment of SDX (Software Defined Transponder), the associated receiver and transmitter modules, and control electronics is a critical milestone for AMSAT as this upcoming flight provides an opportunity to flight test the next generation of spacecraft hardware. Lessons learned from this deployment will be applied to future flight opportunities as AMSAT moves towards a 'modularization approach' to spacecraft development with the expectation the future spacecraft missions will utilize a derivative of SDX and the associated hardware.

_______________________________________________ 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

Well, most of the BOD knows a roll in the mud when they see it. I sometimes lack that ability. No one has asked directly either, I'm busy enough that I don't read the -bb everyday.

I'm working on getting an exact number, but it is at least an order of magnitude less than it would cost to build another AO-7 or even another AO-51 (which gets 10x the use of AO-7).

73, Drew KO4MA

----- Original Message ----- From: "Rocky Jones" orbitjet@hotmail.com To: n3tl@bellsouth.net; ka1rrw@yahoo.com; "Amsat BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 11:28 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS

Tim....and others

I would just like to know what Suitsat2 has cost so far and what it is likely to cost to get it to orbit including integration cost.

In my viewpoint the project is typical of what AMSAT NA has been doing lately, which is a lot of ground development work on making projects "advanced" all the while we rely on a satellite AO7 which we apparently cannot build a replacement for.

I notice that none of the board members who are on this forum are jumping up to say what Suitsat2 is and will cost.

Robert WB5MZO Amsat life member

_________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:W... _______________________________________________ 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

Ben, well said! I think you'll find the same sentiments spreading across many of the BOD and officers over the last year or so. I expect the Symposium this year is where much will be explained.

Launch costs are about 80 to 90% of a project, and in the case of the Suitsat2, practically 0%. We'd be foolish not to take that and run.

73, Drew KO4MA

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Jackson" bbj@innismir.net To: "Rocky Jones" orbitjet@hotmail.com Cc: "Amsat BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org; n3tl@bellsouth.net Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 12:02 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Rocky Jones wrote:

...

In my viewpoint the project is typical of what AMSAT NA has been doing lately, which is a lot of ground development work on making projects "advanced" all the while we rely on a satellite AO7 which we apparently cannot build a replacement for.

I would wager that if SuitlessSat2 goes up (and I pray that it does) it will have much more use then AO-7 in the same time period.

SuitSat was a major PR success for AMSAT and ARISS. More then a few "hacker"/"maker" podcasts/radio shows I listened to plugged the project and amateur radio which you don't see that much. I would say that if SSTV was put into the ISS, it would not receive the same coverage.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. While it would be great if we had a ride for an HEO sat, an ability to get a higher-orbit LEO sat, and, while we're at it, everyone a pony and a puppy, it isn't going to happen. Lets focus on what we can do rather then bog ourselves down in something that we might be able to do if we are lucky.

---

Ben Jackson - N1WBV - New Bedford, MA bbj <at> innismir.net - http://www.innismir.net/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJKjsT+AAoJEAQiWVsfSvVvMmAH/2ahSeIXsk9ISvzvLWoumFpB waVRl8/EEPZbUNjeo655xAIcMpuhDAkdZg+FOOEKzu7AWotUEuvcgdbDMmjAp2+r O63bhn4cmHDkka74bPNcQJYei+ZYYwP1fVDodzXgl2hoJG9EYWnkOce+jAeEuUEe e5z2vmehe8VYeaWhnywMbtKJZaj2IyWO0zvZWNhDxtuj1ve59i8M7yJzGgzbBIOV JTPDZP/x8A7qxQ23U3XU0TeJzY7K5+teXGMqvZfiawkqQq29/blLPfcrt4uVCaDj HE7V+N72bvxDl8XcZyBtAlEqRSF2debXEWIWK+4XoS83FmI5AA0ACE8wzJlAulc= =vjqP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ 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

Launch costs are about 80 to 90% of a project, and in the case of the Suitsat2, practically 0%. We'd be foolish not to take that and run.

73, Drew KO4MA

Drew. I am sure that the "launch cost" from NASA are zero.

I bet that the integration cost are not.

Is it an unreasonable question to ask what the cost of the project are?

Robert WB5MZO

_________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON...

Bill.

The question is cost vrs value.

First off there is almost nothing "free" on the spacestation. The launch might be, but the devil is in the integration details and cost. I dont know what those were for Suitsat1 nor do I know what they are for Suitsat 2 (or sat without the suit)...but the instant the "astronauts" get involved in any substantive manner the cost go up very very quickly.

Then the next question is "is it worth" whatever the cost are? That is a value judgment and in my view has to be weighed with a lot of factors particularly when funds are limited.

Was Oscar 40 worth it? A lot was bet on that satellite, had it worked (or if it was still working) then the value might have approached the cost...as it was well it is hard to argue that the cost put into it was worth what was gotten out of it. Suitsat 1 was a simple satellite that didnt work, the answer is to try a more complicated one?

I am quite certain that the "individual" cost of Suitsat 1 and Suitsat 2 are less then the cost of "doing another AO-7 but things add up and the cost of two or three or four of these projects might eventually add up to an AO-7 or helping 3E get off the ground.

The Russians have a saying "If you (Urinate...they use a different word) into your boot then for a bit you are warmer, and then you are colder and wonder why you did it" (OK I cleaned it up).

Put another way? Are you happy with the current state of the satellite constellation?

Robert WB5MZO

_________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON...

Bill...this is a great conversation and I can pick it up later but right now I need to head up to the ACDO (air carrier district office) and see what the latest plan is for the next airplane I am learning to fly. I am just getting back into that loop.

But these are not costs to AMSAT (which is what I thought you were asking) The astronauts are a cost to the US tax payers.

I would note this. I dont think that astronaut time is "free" to anyone ie that all the cost are borne by the US taxpayer.

My experience (although dated) is that the cost are far from free, that they are to some extent (and a large one) reimbursable to NASA by various organizations. AND someone has to pay the documentation/integration cost of the payload. That can be pretty steep. In the case of "Wake Shield" it was more then the payload itself cost. The suitsat witout a suit is going to ride up on a Progress and the Russians are far more reasonable then NASA...but I'll bet money that there are some NASA cost involved to AMSAT in documentation/integration..

As for AO-40. This was in my view clearly a case of "organizational creep" where eventually the project became to large for the organizational capabilities...it is clear from the failures on the ground which initiated the failures in flight that the organization was far less competent then the task at hand. I guess I have not heard what was the ultimate "fail point" in Suitsat but unless it was equipment malfunction it is likely that it was more of the same. IE trying to do more project then the capabilities of the organization.

anyway..talk to you later

Robert WB5MZO

_________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON...

Hi Tim: Thank you for your comments.

I am always open to new ideas and I welcome your questions and observations. I plan on posting some suggestions on how to use the Existing Hardware on ISS to try to please as many hams and SWL as possible.

We can’t make everyone happy.

I feel there has been a loss of interest in ISS amateur Radio. Our ham projects over the past 10 years have not grabbed very much public or ham interest (with the exception of School Schedules).

To restore interest in ISS we need to have more than 1 project running at a time. We also need projects that are exciting to a larger audience.

If we continue to use our valuable launches to ISS for Short-term projects, then ISS will say a dull boring and wasted platform for amateur radio experimentation.

The project that will generate the most positive press and public enthusiasm is SSTV. Of course I am going to push this project, not just because it’s a Marex project, but because of the great news stores we received during the Mir version of SSTV. SSTV will generate good Press and TV new clips. SSTV will generate interests from the SWL (and they out number ham by at least 10 to1)

Mode Change to SSTV: I do not believe that switching from packet to SSTV would reduce the number of random public voice contacts. On the contrary, from my experience with previous Mir and ISS crews running SSTV, the number random public voice contacts increased.

Commander Pavel Vinogradov in July August 2006 would be on Voice, asking “Did you seem my SSTV pictures”?

During Richard Garriott’s Mission in October 2008, he used both Voce and SSTV. He was often interested in knowing how well people liked his images. He would have sent more images, however he had technical difficulties with the Vox box causing the TM-D700 too repeatedly get stuck transmitting. He also said there was a shortage of AA batteries for the Kenwood Communicator VCH1.

In my experience with multiple SSTV crews, SSTV will increased your opportunity to talk to the crews on Voice.

Ideally I would like to see SpaceCam1 SSTV activated for 3-4 consecutive months in a row. I do not want to see SSTV turned on for 1-2 days per month. We need a consecutive run to build up momentum. This would mean turning off Packet for a few months. The reason for this mode change experiment would be the following:

Build up a world wide following of SSTV users (both Amateur Radio and SWL) Get more Schools involved to act as geography receiving stations. Point future and existing User’s to an ARISS/AMSAT web page to learn how to SSTV, etc. Tell the News and Magazine about the project. We had great press coverage with Mir SSTV.

ISS Crew Time: MM The Station is currently manned with 3 people. That number will be increasing in 2009 to a crew of 5-6 (in theory). At the present time the ISS crew has no free time.. It will be hard to add more Public Voice Access to ISS with a 3 man crew.. We hope Public Voice activities will improve when the crew expands to 5-6 crewmembers.

My plan is to run SSTV and voice on the same world wide channel pair.

(Let’s not get into frequency politics at this time.)

In August 1996 when we made ARISS, I asked Guest speaker Astronaut Linda Godwin, what she wanted for ham projects. She said “She wanted to see the faces of the people she was talking with “. Based on Linda’s suggestion, with help of Farrell Winder, W8ZCF and Dr. Don Miller, W9NTP, we delivered SSTV to Mir in 15 months. The Mir crew loved the system and were frequently seen floating in front of the Camera sending picture to Earth.

Here is how I envision SSTV operations on ISS. The crew has SpaceCam1 running in automatic slide show mode. The volume on the TM-D700 is turned OFF. The crew has a break and goes over to the radio, turns up the volume and calls CQ and starts chatting.

If the person he is talking to has SSTV, then they can exchange two way images. All images set to ISS can be automatically stored to disk. If the user has a SSTV program that supports “SID”, then his call sign becomes part of the file name automatically.

SpaceCam1 SSTV is a win win project for everyone.

Packet on ISS:

I am a big fan of Packet. I have been a strong supporter for packet on ISS since we first began planning ISS in August 1996. The existing TM-700 is a very good voice radio. The TM-D700 is a weak packet engine. The packet engine in the TM-D700 is limited in its abilities. The TM-D700 can perform the basic packet duties, but it’s just not as good as a dedicated packet engine such as the KPC product lines. The TM-D700 does have a few operating system packet bugs that we can not fix (Forces every packet mail line to be acknowledged, etc).

To make matters worse, the TM-D700 User editable settings were setup wrong in 2003, which rendered Packet Mail unusable and slowed down the unproto link (APRS). Bob Bruninga did rewrite User editable settings for the TM-D700 in 2007, which I tested and gave a thumbs up. As far as I know, the fixed software has still not been installed on either of the two ISS TM-D700 systems.

So until the TM-D700 software is uploaded the packet mail will not work. And even when it is enabled, due to other issues with the OS, the Packet Mail Single-User throughput is only half that of an External TNC.

With an unusable mailbox the thrill of ISS Packet has been reduced. We did have some fun with ISS PacCom / Ericsson Packet Mail system in 2002 for about 1 year. The Ericsson system was shutdown in December 2003.. The location of the ISS Ericsson packet system is unknown.

http://www.marexmg.org/fileshtml/packetmail.html

How many APRS users are currently operating ISS? I assume that Bob Bruninga maybe able to peruse his APRS logs for the past few years and count how many different call signs use ISS APRs per year. That information will be helpful in knowing just how many people actually use ISS APRS. I will help us plan projects for the future.

Cross Band Repeater with the TM-D700:

The TMD700 is a basic dual band radio that also has a Cross band repeater mode. It is not a heavy-duty high quality cross band repeater. Those of us that have used the TM-D700 in cross band mode from ISS have been disappointed in its performance. The Audio is poor. The receiver has capture issues. Overall it is not as easy to use as Oscar-51 or Oscar-27 The very short duration contest style contacts are not very popular.

We have had overheating problems in the past with the TM-D700 on ISS while running high duty unattended modes. All electronics run hotter in space. Commander Pavel Vinogradov, moved the TM-D700 from its mounting tray to an open ceiling panel to help keep the radio cooler.

Efficiencies of ARISS teams: MM

Your observation are correct, depending on which ARISS team manages the project determines how fast a project will fly. All ARISS project have to go through ARISS-Russia. The ARISS Russian team actually works in the Russian space agencies. If a project is designed by ARISS-Russian, that project can fly in less than 2 years. Some of the reason are, the ARISS-Russian teams know the flight safety requirements and can generate the tests and approvals faster than the other ARISS teams. The ARISS-Russian teams like to use Off-the-Shelf hardware for faster delivery.

The other ARISS teams need to lean to be as efficient as the ARISS-Russian team.

The Suit-Sat1 project is a good example of efficiency. I am not sure who had the idea first, but it did proceed fast. ARISS-Russia liked the idea and had the spacesuit and antenna all ready in stock, NO development time.

ARISS-North America, used an Off-the-Shelf radio and only had to build the Turn-On safety timer and PIC controller board. I do not know exactly how many moths, but it was quick and used several existing components, Space Suit, Spare ARISS ham antenna, Off the shelf Radio.

The Suit-Sat-2 project is all custom built from scratch using all new technology. It’s been almost 4 years and counting.

Efficiency is the key. ARISS needs to follow ARISS-Russians lead in efficiency. And still maintain full flight safely requirements.

Better Home for SuitSat-2:

I never suggested Abandoning SuitSat-2, what I am recommending is that SuitSat-2 be placed on a rocket for a higher orbit.

We only have a hand full of flight opportunities left to get projects on ISS. Our opinions may differ and that’s fine. I just believe that with the few launches to ISS remaining we should be devoted to longer-term project for the Amateur Radio and SWL communities.

Thank you for your comments Tim.

I hope this helped

Sincerely

Miles WF1F Wf1f@marexmg.org

Hi Miles,

Thank you for this response - especially for the persoective it provides. As I mentioned in my last post, I was off the air and totally away from amateur radio for more than 15 years. As a result, I had no knowledge of  how operations from Mir occurred. I appreciate having this information because it helps me to understand how things have progressed in terms of amateur communications with various manned orbiting stations.

Because I haven't been active throughout the entire time frame, I can only draw on my personal experiences over the past 14 months when it comes to overall interest in communications with the ISS. I am having a tough time accepting the veracity of your statement that interest in communication with and through the ISS has diminished. I have made 116 voice contacts with and through the ISS since Richard's visit to the station last October. I and others have commented among ourselves at the significant number of calls we have heard only through the ISS voice repeater. I believe interest remains strong, and dare say that oportunities for two-way contacts are the reason.

We are on different sides of the SSTV fence; and, of course, neither of us will change the other's mind about the relative merits of one mode over the other when there is only one radio station aboard the ISS for use in amateur communications. I cannot personally support the plans you propose because I do not believe they represent the most effective use of the communications gear available on the ISS. The kind of exchanges you described between the ISS and a ground station - both set up for SSTV - inevitably will decrease opportunities for two-way contacts because of the time each SSTV transmission consumes. Given its lower orbit and resulting smaller footprint, ISS passes are inherently the shortest-duration passes of all the amateur satellites we have available. SSTV represents the longest-duration mode of operation to and from the ISS in terms of completing a two-way contact - and a one-way transmission, as far as that goes. In that regard, it is the most inefficient mode available for use. I can't support proposals that advocate using what precious time is available for amateur radio communication via the ISS to enable a mode that inarguably decreases the opportunity for contacts, either among amateur ground stations (via the repeater) or among ground stations and the crews.

I will continue to participate in ARISS activities regardless of their form. I would prefer that form not include significant SSTV activity for reasons I've stated here and in my earlier email.

73 to all,

Tim - N3TL

________________________________ From: MM ka1rrw@yahoo.com To: amsat-bb@amsat.org; Tim Lilley n3tl@bellsouth.net Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 9:56:04 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS, MM

Hi Tim: Thank you for your comments.

I am always open to new ideas and I welcome your questions and observations. I plan on posting some suggestions on how to use the Existing Hardware on ISS to try to please as many hams and SWL as possible.

We can’t make everyone happy.

I feel there has been a loss of interest in ISS amateur Radio.  Our ham projects over the past 10 years have not grabbed very much public or ham interest (with the exception of School Schedules).

To restore interest in ISS we need to have more than 1 project running at a time. We also need projects that are exciting to a larger audience.

If we continue to use our valuable launches to ISS for Short-term projects, then ISS will say a dull boring and wasted platform for amateur radio experimentation.

The project that will generate the most positive press and public enthusiasm is SSTV.  Of course I am going to push this project, not just because it’s a Marex project, but because of the great news stores we received during the Mir version of SSTV.  SSTV will generate good Press and TV new clips. SSTV will generate interests from the SWL (and they out number ham by at least 10 to1)

Mode Change to SSTV: I do not believe that switching from packet to SSTV would reduce the number of random public voice contacts.  On the contrary, from my experience with previous Mir and ISS crews running SSTV, the number random public voice contacts increased.

Commander Pavel Vinogradov in July August 2006 would be on Voice, asking “Did you seem my SSTV pictures”?

During Richard Garriott’s Mission in October 2008, he used both Voce and SSTV.  He was often interested in knowing how well people liked his images.  He would have sent more images, however he had technical difficulties with the Vox box causing the TM-D700 too repeatedly get stuck transmitting.  He also said there was a shortage of AA batteries for the Kenwood Communicator VCH1.

In my experience with multiple SSTV crews, SSTV will increased your opportunity to talk to the crews on Voice.

Ideally I would like to see SpaceCam1 SSTV activated for 3-4 consecutive months in a row.  I do not want to see SSTV turned on for 1-2 days per month. We need a consecutive run to build up momentum. This would mean turning off Packet for a few months.  The reason for this mode change experiment would be the following:

Build up a world wide following of SSTV users (both Amateur Radio and SWL) Get more Schools involved to act as geography receiving stations. Point future and existing User’s to an ARISS/AMSAT web page to learn how to SSTV, etc. Tell the News and Magazine about the project.  We had great press coverage with Mir SSTV.

ISS Crew Time:  MM The Station is currently manned with 3 people.  That number will be increasing in 2009 to a crew of 5-6 (in theory).  At the present time the ISS crew has no free time..  It will be hard to add more Public Voice Access to ISS with a 3 man crew.. We hope Public Voice activities will improve when the crew expands to 5-6 crewmembers.

My plan is to run SSTV and voice on the same world wide channel pair.

(Let’s not get into frequency politics at this time.)

In August 1996 when we made ARISS, I asked Guest speaker Astronaut Linda Godwin, what she wanted for ham projects.  She said “She wanted to see the faces of the people she was talking with “. Based on Linda’s suggestion, with help of Farrell Winder, W8ZCF and Dr. Don Miller, W9NTP, we delivered SSTV to Mir in 15 months.  The Mir crew loved the system and were frequently seen floating in front of the Camera sending picture to Earth.

Here is how I envision SSTV operations on ISS. The crew has SpaceCam1 running in automatic slide show mode.  The volume on the TM-D700 is turned OFF.  The crew has a break and goes over to the radio, turns up the volume and calls CQ and starts chatting.

If the person he is talking to has SSTV, then they can exchange two way images. All images set to ISS can be automatically stored to disk. If the user has a SSTV program that supports “SID”, then his call sign becomes part of the file name automatically.

SpaceCam1 SSTV is a win win project for everyone.

Packet on ISS:

I am a big fan of Packet.  I have been a strong supporter for packet on ISS since we first began planning ISS in August 1996.  The existing TM-700 is a very good voice radio.  The TM-D700 is a weak packet engine.  The packet engine in the TM-D700 is limited in its abilities.  The TM-D700 can perform the basic packet duties, but it’s just not as good as a dedicated packet engine such as the KPC product lines.  The TM-D700 does have a few operating system packet bugs that we can not fix (Forces every packet mail line to be acknowledged, etc).

To make matters worse, the TM-D700 User editable settings were setup wrong in 2003, which rendered Packet Mail unusable and slowed down the unproto link (APRS). Bob Bruninga did rewrite User editable settings for the TM-D700 in 2007, which I tested and gave a thumbs up.  As far as I know, the fixed software has still not been installed on either of the two ISS TM-D700 systems.

So until the TM-D700 software is uploaded the packet mail will not work.  And even when it is enabled, due to other issues with the OS, the Packet Mail Single-User throughput is only half that of an External TNC.

With an unusable mailbox the thrill of ISS Packet has been reduced.  We did have some fun with ISS PacCom / Ericsson Packet Mail system in 2002 for about 1 year.  The Ericsson system was shutdown in December 2003.. The location of the ISS Ericsson packet system is unknown.

http://www.marexmg.org/fileshtml/packetmail.html

How many APRS users are currently operating ISS? I assume that Bob Bruninga maybe able to peruse his APRS logs for the past few years and count how many different call signs use ISS APRs per year.  That information will be helpful in knowing just how many people actually use ISS APRS.  I will help us plan projects for the future.

Cross Band Repeater with the TM-D700:

The TMD700 is a basic dual band radio that also has a Cross band repeater mode.  It is not a heavy-duty high quality cross band repeater.  Those of us that have used the TM-D700 in cross band mode from ISS have been disappointed in its performance. The Audio is poor. The receiver has capture issues. Overall it is not as easy to use as Oscar-51 or Oscar-27 The very short duration contest style contacts are not very popular.

We have had overheating problems in the past with the TM-D700 on ISS while running high duty unattended modes.  All electronics run hotter in space. Commander Pavel Vinogradov, moved the TM-D700 from its mounting tray to an open ceiling panel to help keep the radio cooler.

Efficiencies of ARISS teams:  MM

Your observation are correct, depending on which ARISS team manages the project determines how fast a project will fly. All ARISS project have to go through ARISS-Russia.  The ARISS Russian team actually works in the Russian space agencies.  If a project is designed by ARISS-Russian, that project can fly in less than 2 years. Some of the reason are, the ARISS-Russian teams know the flight safety requirements and can generate the tests and approvals faster than the other ARISS teams. The ARISS-Russian teams like to use Off-the-Shelf hardware for faster delivery.

The other ARISS teams need to lean to be as efficient as the ARISS-Russian team.

The Suit-Sat1 project is a good example of efficiency.  I am not sure who had the idea first, but it did proceed fast.  ARISS-Russia liked the idea and had the spacesuit and antenna all ready in stock, NO development time.

ARISS-North America, used an Off-the-Shelf radio and only had to build the Turn-On safety timer and PIC controller board.  I do not know exactly how many moths, but it was quick and used several existing components, Space Suit, Spare ARISS ham antenna,  Off the shelf Radio.

The Suit-Sat-2 project is all custom built from scratch using all new technology.  It’s been almost 4 years and counting.

Efficiency is the key.  ARISS needs to follow ARISS-Russians lead in efficiency.  And still maintain full flight safely requirements.

Better Home for SuitSat-2:

I never suggested Abandoning SuitSat-2, what I am recommending is that SuitSat-2 be placed on a rocket for a higher orbit.

We only have a hand full of flight opportunities left to get projects on ISS. Our opinions may differ and that’s fine.  I just believe that with the few launches to ISS remaining we should be devoted to longer-term project for the Amateur Radio and SWL communities.

Thank you for your comments Tim.

I hope this helped

Sincerely

Miles WF1F Wf1f@marexmg.org

_______________________________________________ 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

Almost this entire treatise is based on ignorance of the facts in my estimation so far as "AMSAT the satellite building" organization goes. Much more informed people than I can comment on the ARISS projects. I just enjoy what has been accomplished kin ARISS technically, educationally, etc.

Suitsat 2, even in its Suitless Sat version is not really designed for more than toss out the door kind of lifetime. You can take my word for it or not, I don't care if you do or not. I just claim it is so.

Given that you take my word for it, I suggest that it is the PERFECT use of the technology that is in the current design. It will accomplish several things (besides getting me to put my antennas back on the roof). We will have shown we can integrate a simple satellite and renew our standing with NASA as a satellite building entity. We are not going to get a suit in a timely fashion (they tossed them overboard before we even knew it was happening almost).

We are building an almost completely new cadre of people who are working on this with some help (but not a lot) from the OF's (I am including myself in the OF category). We needed the kick in the pants by the team putting this together.

We cannot buy a launch for love nor money and we either sit around and watch our organization dwindle, accomplish nothing, or we do SOMETHING with our time and talents. This thing cost a tiny amount of money, not a lot more than flying a few people around.

This has provided a spark that was needed. That is more than enough to justify it in my opinion.

I congratulate all involved for moving this forward and finding a way to turn lemons into lemonade.

I am not the only person bemoaning the lack of ability to get a launch. All involved are there. I have said here before we have a built P3 spacecraft with no ride. We do something with what we are given, or we shrivel up and give up.

Thank you for allowing me my $0.02

73's Bob N4HY

MM wrote:

Don’t Fly Suit-Sat to the International Space Station

The International Space Station will be retired in 20015-2016. We do not have much time left, before NASA pulls the plug! We need your help to convince NASA, ESA and RSA to send more Long term educational projects to ISS and to not send short term disposable Toss-Satellites projects such as the Suit-Sat-2 to ISS.

Don’t Fly Suit-Sat to the International Space Station

Nothing in amateur radio has ever been accomplished by the naysayers and armchair lawyers and wannabee's and dreamers that spend their time trying to tear down and stop what others are trying to accomplish. Amateur radio and ANY volunteer organization simply doesn't work that way. The only thing that accomplishes anything are individuals that are individually motivated and work on things to their own motivation and make forward progress.

No amount of criciicm, or alternates, or complaining every accomplishes anything forward. The only effective thing it accomplishes often is the "dooers" just give up in frustration at all the ankle biters, and move on to other things.

Paul Rinaldo, W4RI in leading the AMRAD group in the development of AX.25 in the USA said it simply... Either help with those that are making progress, or GET OUT OF THE WAY!

He viewed his job as president to make sure all the bright minds and able-bodied workers had everything they needed to make progress and also he worked to fight off the naysayers, and kibitzers and keep them from discouraging and holding things back or trying to redirect the effort to naught.

When all the work is being done by VOLUNTEERS who are self motivated, there is usually no amount of kibitzing or re-directing or complaining that will make ANY FORWARD progress. The only possible outcome is that those DOERS just quit out of frustration.

I say again, either build it yourself, or give support to those that do, or just shut up and get out of the way. No volunteer is motivated by all the whining and "why dont you do it my way" kind of kibitzing. If you want it done another way, then start from scratch and do it yourself your way, and we wish you every success. ANY ACCOMPLISHMENT in Amateur Radio (an all volunter service) should be praised.

Any ideas on how to do it differently should only serve as a self motivator to get out and do it that way yourself. Then others should praise you for your accomplishment. But NEVER do it at the EXPENSE OF OTHERS!

I have never seen such a distracting, self-serving and destructive proposal as this...

We need your help to convince NASA, ESA and RSA to send more Long term educational projects to ISS and to not send short term disposable Toss- Satellites projects such as the Suit-Sat-2 to ISS.

Now let me see. It shouldnt be hard at all to "convince" any bureaucrat who is working 12 hour days and has all the stress of the space business to NOT fly something! He will be more than happy to NOT fly something, just so he has one less thing to worry about. But it is about 100 times harder to "convince" that same bureaucrat to then re-direct hi energies to some new wannabee idea...

What was accomplished? Simply nonthing, but the waste of a large number of AMSAT Volunteers efforts over the last year to feed the ego of a few...

In this document I will go over several reasons why Suit-Sat-2 is the wrong project for the ISS...

Nothing that is making progress is the wrong project, just because it might, be, or shoulda, or coulda been done diffrently with 20/20 hindsight.

This is an open letter to representatives of the organizations and technical communities, including: NASA, European Space Agency, Russian Space Agency, AMSAT, ARISS, ARRL, Amateur Radio community and the Short Wave Listener community.

And is a flagrant display of a loose cannon on deck dstroying the work, effort and progress of dedicated volunteers.

The Orbit of the ISS is approximately 250 miles (350 kilometers)... and Suit-Sat-2... will burn up in 6-12 months.

Yes, but you take what is avaialble. The Naval Academy has taken such low orbits for 5 of its 6 satellites and the amateur radio community has BENEFITTED from these short missions...

Suit-Sat-2 needs to be in a high orbit such as the common 700-800 km orbit,

Duh... of course, every ham satellite would love to be in that orbit, but it is not WISHES that get one to space, it is LAUNCH OPPORTUNITIES... and the ISS has NONE, zip-squat-sero launches there! And you are talking to the ISS team! An absolute waste of time, other than your negativism that only destroys our existing opportunities to 350 km!

Reason #4: Suit-Sat-2 needs a new container:

Well, duh... when you lose the spacesuit, then yes, you have to build a new enclosure...

The Ariss Hardware team now needs to ... redesign.... This will not be a simple task.

So GET OUT OF THE WAY!

Reason #5: Launch Date January 2010:

So GET OUT OF THE WAY! FOr those not in the space business that think you just walk in with a payload and hand it over, That is an extemely hard deadline to meet.

We need more "Longer" term projects on ISS that reach a greater audience.

Yes, and I need more money, more time, more radios, a new car, and a nice new house... but I dont see ANYTHING in this proposal that accomplishes ANYTHING towards a viable project...

Short term projects such as ... Suit-Sat-2 are a waist of a very valuable ISS resource.

Ah, so your attempt at blocking progress on Suitsat with dreams is somehow going to magically get you a launch of some imginary new pet project into a dream orbit?

Let’s go for the long term Plan. I believe that the Suit-Sat-2 project can be boxed up and made viable for launches in the 2013 time frame.

I have a better idea. Let the Suitsat volunteers proceed with 100% of your full support and then start working on your own dream-box for the 2013 time frame! Remember, its WHO does the work determines WHAT gets built. Not a bunch of poison emails...

The AMSAT Corporation and ARISS should start looking for higher altitude unmanned rockets in that time frame to place Suit-Sat-2 in a more functional orbit.

Duh! I cant blieve such a stupid and naive statement. What on earth do you think the "AMSAT" and ARISS" guys do, but work and dig, and follow every possible hint of a launch opportunity. They have been doing that for 20 years! Such opportunities are extemely rare, and you bet that if any are or will come available, then volunteers will step forward to move out... just GET OUT OF THE WAY...

Long Term Project Suggestions:

We dont need suggestions, we need LAUNCHES.

Don't derail anything in progress. If you have better ideeas, then start working on them. Just get out of the way of those that are currently working on their own labors of love (that benefit us all)...

Bob, Wb4APR

I offered three classes in a local Middle School after SS-1 was launched. The details were posted in this letter: http://128.54.16.15/amsat/archive/amsat-bb/200602/msg00877.html As I noted then, it was a great success: the idea of communicating with an object pushed out of humanity's current only outpost in space was not lost to the students. I can honestly say that they found it considerably more engaging than other classes I have given on s

73, Bruce VE9QRP

Bruce...so we are doing satellites now for their educational not communicative value?

Years ago when the twins were in High school they gave a demonstration to their class of "chatting it up" with people in space, some of which they latter got to come to their class (Houston) and have a follow up.

Proud parents aside...I dont see how the next one is going to be all that more interesting then the "Sputnik" revival (which got little attention)...

and while NASA pushes the long term "invest in our youth" stick, they do it because they have nothing else to sell.

sorry the "we have to look after the kids thing" doesnt impress me much (of course now the twins are being slung off of the Ronald Reagan...)

Robert WB5MZO

_________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON...

Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:53:11 +0000 From: ke9v@sdf.lonestar.org To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Don't Fly SuitSat2 to ISS (rebuttal)

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:35:29PM -0500, Rocky Jones wrote:

...

Bruce...so we are doing satellites now for their educational not communicative value?

Why not?

-- Jeff, KE9V

because if we do satellites for educational purposes then the effort is non sustainable.

you can already see that in the trends in the US. the most popular birds (the FM birds) are ones for whom commercial equipment from the antenna to the radio is available and is relatively user friendly. the more "esoteric" the communication platform gets the less used it is. The less people who can use a platform then the less people there are to contribute to building new ones...and the less people there are then the less likely it is that manufactors will build equipment which will allow more people to use the platform.

It is a negative feedback in a gain loop and to use a phrase "the oscillation" stops.

That is what makes the decisions on AO 40 so lame. Instead of building a satellite which would provide Oscar 10/13 communications (with maybe something at 2.4 ghz which could become reliable) they had to go build a super sat which was going to do things that were simply out of reach of all but a very few hams (40ghz? or whatever it was) .. it got more and more complicated, obviously to complicated for the people who were building it...and now it and the money that built it are gone.

I'll bet you money that if the truth came out, what happened with Suitsat 2 and the suits is that the project grew so "complicated" that the folks building it just missed various deadlines ie they couldnt get the thing built. Who knows if they will be able to meet the next deadline (ie for a 2010 early lift) of if it will work or not, the first one a much simpler system was a pretty solid failure.

If "educating our youth" (a tired NASA phrase) starts becoming the foundation for anything in ham radio...then before long we will find there is no ham radio. This of course follows NASA in general. They have failed to make human spaceflight relevant to the rest of America in anything but pretty tired phrases...and if you have not noticed there are big changes ahead.

Robert WB5MZO

_________________________________________________________________ Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHY...

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:51:19AM -0500, Rocky Jones wrote:

because if we do satellites for educational purposes then the effort is non sustainable.

Your logic is flawed in several places here.

First of all, you are making the same mistake as many on this BB that whatever choices that we have are somehow "options".

Given the "option" we would build several million dollar satellites and then spend $8 million US a piece to get them into a suitable transfer orbit. Fine. All we need is $25 million US and we can begin that construction tomorrow...

Another flaw in your argument is this common thread that somehow it was the sophistication of AO-40 that led to its demise. The notion that such a thing exists as a "simple" HEO satellite needs desperately to be exorcised from the thinking of all AMSAT members.

There ain't no such animal.

It continues to fall on deaf ears that the entire P3 program consisted of P3A (blew up on launch), P3B (malfunction on release even though AO-10 gave a lot of people a lot of joy it was not at all a 100% success), P3C was nearly perfect except that its life was terminated much sooner than it should have been due to an orbital miscalculation.

And then there was P3D and we all know its story.

Four launches; one success and three not so successful launches. That's it. 1-4 is our thirty-year record at HEO.

The failures were not for lack of trying, effort, or intelligence on our part, but rather, indicate what a daunting task it is to build a satellite "in a garage" that includes an onboard propulsion system and some sort of attitude control -- along with a communication package that doesn't piss off half the members because it will require them to invest another $200 in a new transverter...

Your point about educational projects being non-sustainable is questionable.

By encouraging, mentoring, and working with Universities to produce Cubesat type projects and payloads, we will be exposing amateur radio to a number of students who are presumably studying for a career in science and aerospace. Some of these will go on to become the engineering managers for the spate of commercial launch companies that will very soon arrive on the scene.

And maybe, just maybe, one of them will one day have the opportunity to recommend an amateur radio project for one of those "spare" lifts to GTO that you and others think might some day exist and that we need to be ready to take advantage of...

The truth is, we have arrived at a place in history where given the circumstances, we very likely will not be returning to HEO anytime soon, if ever. We can kick and scream and lay down and die, or we can dust ourselves off, take what we have and move forward.

Of course its just my opinion, but we've cried in our beer long enough and we need to get over it and get moving. Quite frankly, the future for amateur radio in space for the next twenty-years is at LEO. AMSAT can choose to embrace that and make progress or ignore it and become totally irrelevant.

AMSAT can ignore LEO but radio amateurs will not. We will keep playing with whatever assets appear on orbit with or without AMSAT but then given that scenario, who needs AMSAT?

Never forget the builders factor

Each one involved in the sat making have their own ideas about what THEY believe the satellite should be. It has been well documented in the past that some says they are not interested in building something they already built in the past. They want new technology even if they will be the few who will be able to use it.

In the mean time if the next HEO will not be a viable solution in this decade could be something in the AO-07 range should be looking at? "-"

Luc Leblanc VE2DWE

Luc. I have no doubt that what you say is correct. That is where good project management comes into play...and the issue of what Amsat is all about. Is it about the folks who build the satellites or the folks who are making them possible.

you have stated my point quite well.

If we are out of the HEO business (and one hopes 3E flies) then yes, what we should do in my view is a plethora of AO-7's. If we had a supply of those the entire community would be better off.

Robert WB5MZO

_________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON...

Bob

And since "they" are the ones spending 12-16 hours a day for years to BUILD it, then it is only human nature that they will build what THEY believe in, and not what a bunch of keyboard-jocky shack-potato's waste everyone's time whinnning about...

OK, so they dont care about the membership that is supposedly the core of Amsat?

Robert WB5MZO

_________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:W...

I believe you are right, Bob. The total number of dissenting opinions at least on the -bb have been few. I have been silent, although tempted to reply, but I believe you have hit the nail on the head. I believe the "silent majority" is behind AMSAT.

Jerry N0JY

Bob Bruninga wrote:

The broad membership believes in the AMSAT mission and contributes to help these poor souls make progress and hopes for the best.

Bob, Wb4APR

On 23 Aug 2009 at 23:17, N0JY wrote:

I believe you are right, Bob. The total number of dissenting opinions at least on the -bb have been few. I have been silent, although tempted to reply, but I believe you have hit the nail on the head. I believe the "silent majority" is behind AMSAT.

Jerry N0JY

Bob Bruninga wrote:

...

The broad membership believes in the AMSAT mission and contributes to help these poor souls make progress and hopes for the best.

Bob, Wb4APR

Guessing on the "Silent majority" opinion is and will always be very tricky but what's this "silent majority" is waiting for and behind it's the next HEO namely called Eagle by AMSAT-NA but scapped due to numerous issues at AMSAT-NA.

If each time someone voice an opinion who is not what someone else opinion it is not appropriate to answer back using this kind of language " but I believe you have hit the nail on the head." "and not what a bunch of keyboard-jocky shack-potato's waste everyone's time whinnning about..." If you can only whine, then get out of the way..." And the ankle-bitters and whinning shack-potatoes win and will go on and on about how "they shoulda, coulda, woulda done better"... BUT, nothing was accomplished..."

Bob and Jerry we are in 2009 and internet is now a part of our life. It is not only the AMSAT journal who is now the only one sources of information. The context change at AMSAT-NA as soon as people start to comment and voices their opinions mainly through the internet but mentalities at AMSAT-NA never change.

You are right when you wrote "And since "they" are the ones spending 12-16 hours a day for years to BUILD it, then it is only human nature that they will build what THEY believe in" But if you only work for your own satisfaction ignoring others wishes and ideas you are going to hit a wall one day or another. Is it possible that actual AMSAT-NA problems come from this kind of attitude? I do what i want if you are not with me you are against me and i will ignore you... What happen when the crowds start to voices their opinions " the ones spending 12-16 hours a day for years to BUILD it" start to fight back the pressure making ultimatum "I will resign and try to do it if you can"

"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."

Is ITAR is really what stops the cooperation between AMSAT-NA and AMSAT-DL? even if both sign a cooperation agreement many years prior to this ITAR illusion? Could be if AMSAT-NA in the past was so aware of the "silent majority" desires they probably choose to go by theses desires instead of those of the few builders!

Trying to silence those who freely voices their opinions telling them "If you can only whine, then get out of the way..." is surely a way to promote the silent majority to express their opinions... As i said guessing on the "Silent majority" opinion is and will always be very tricky" mine is as good as yours and as written " The total number of dissenting opinions at least on the -bb have been few" just note the " number of dissenting opinions" and "have been few"" you will have the AMSAT-NA trend no matter what theses dissenting opinions are we just have to consider them as " have been few" as the validity and the right to express an opinion in AMSAT-NA is related to a math figures? In a sense they are right just ask any marketing firm about their client satisfaction, when they are satisfied they will tell to 3 others but when they are not satisfied they will tell to 10 others. Again it's very tricky to guess on the silent majority opinion!!

As Robert wrote "based on your logic no criticism whatsoever is warranted." Yes it is exactly what we all seen here from AMSAT-NA and by some of their blinded suppporters.

Jack also summarized the situation quite well even it was not his goal:

"The question is, what about those who left AMSAT or no longer pay due because they also - silently - are voting with thier talents, skills, and money which are not available... It is no problem to have a group which is in - at least tacit - agreement, just force the others out or ignore them until they leave."

Bingo! you put the finger on the plea but IMHO AMSAT-NA should change his mission "Its goal was to foster Amateur Radio's participation in space research and communication. AMSAT was founded to continue the efforts, begun in 1961, by Project OSCAR" to read "Its goal is to foster Amateur Radio's education and information and cooperation in space research and communication.AMSAT was founded to continue the efforts, begun in 1961, by Project OSCAR and now carried by universities and colleges.

Just note the "cooperation" just read an excerpt about the 2001 International Satellite Workshop sponsored by AMSAT-DL

"The closing day of the gathering was set aside for more-detailed discussions on various aspects and strategies for future missions. Representatives of nine AMSAT organizations, as well as of various space business groups, the European Space Agency and Arianespace attended the gathering."

Just return to the basics!!!

Could be at the next AMSAT-NA Space Symposium in October someone can make a proposal? It will at least take out a lot of pressure for the BOD who is still without a president and it will make possible to support the viable actual options eg: P3E by AMSAT-DL and support ARISS in their mission including the Suit/Box sat. This change in the goal will give the necessary slack to regroup and reform AMSAT-NA towards a more realistic mission as it is obvious that all the resources human and funding are now exhausted regarding an HEO and probably also for any other cube sats as it is no more AMSAT-NA who is the leader in the amateur satellite world.

It's not new look what happen in 2004:

"AMSAT at the Nanosat-3 Design Review

NASA and the AFRL had a review/poster session with the University Nanosat 3 team of universities just a few weeks ago. This was held near the Dulles Airport in the DC area. All 13 universities were in attendance. We also had a significant contingent of AMSAT leadership there including Tom Clark, W3IWI, Art Feller, W4ART, Perry Klein, W3PK, Mark Kanawati, N4TPY and Frank Bauer, KA3HDO. They provided significant guidance to the university students, the professors and to the NASA and AFRL members in attendance. There was a lot of AMSAT hardware development knowledge in that room. The AMSAT team members had some substantial one-on-one dialogue with the university teams on frequency coordination, dos and don'ts of spacecraft design, etc."

Check also this http://www.rsgb.org/spectrumforum/pdfs/minutes/june07/Radio_Amateurs_Mars.pd...

They surely can help providing expertise and counselling to all the various group an universities who are projecting to put something in orbit. Their communication expertise will and still is one of their greatest assets. It is by this asset they will be able to survive and can have the best opportunity to still be able to fly a transponder (See PE1RAH William Leijenaar small transponder project) in orbit. Also maintaining their web site can also be a nodal point of amateur satellite expertise who can be promoted to be "The expertise place on the internet".

Failure is not an option but targetting any launch or satellite construction is now out of reach and will only lead to even more failure and deception. It is better to move in one direction than remaining stand still.

"-"

Luc Leblanc VE2DWE Skype VE2DWE www.qsl.net/ve2dwe WAC BASIC CW PHONE SATELLITE

On 24 Aug 2009 at 9:46, Robert Bruninga wrote:

...

I believe you are right, Bob. The total number of dissenting opinions at least on the -bb have been few. ... I believe the "silent majority" is behind AMSAT.

Oh, by-the-way, I have received lots of private-off-BB email agreement. Normally I reply to each such private email, but since there have been so many, I thought I would save time and thank those individuals all at once if the opportunity came up. They rightly didn't want to add any more emails to this burdensome thread that comes up every few months and then wastes everone's precious time... So lets all hang in there, work the satellites, and work with groups that are building satellites, and contribute where we can... Or get out of the way. Bob.

Quote

"based on your logic no criticism whatsoever is warranted." Yes it is exactly what we all seen here from AMSAT-NA and by some of their blinded supporter"

End of quote

Just look around some AMSAT-BB actual and past BOD members and you will have a fairly good idea of this "lots of private-off-BB email agreement." I.m also receiving a lot of commenting coming from the EU AMSAT reflector and even some on the air! It's not a question of who is supporting who but how to make a satellite association running who is actually not working as per nominal parameters.

AMSAT-NA is unable to have any kind of evolution as it's core members are always the same promoting always the same ideas to a point they are and will be more and more unable to attract new officers and volunteers.

They are not even taking any lessons learn from the past. There is nothing to be ashamed to be stupid but willingly accepting to remain stupid is.

"-"

Luc Leblanc VE2DWE Skype VE2DWE www.qsl.net/ve2dwe WAC BASIC CW PHONE SATELLITE

Are you saying that the folks who build the satellites are doing it for their own self interest?

Nope, for the second time that you have now tried to twist this into your own self serving view of selfishness, I say again, read my words.

...

And since "they" are the ones spending 12-16 hours a day for years to BUILD it, then it is only human nature that they will build what THEY believe in,

I said BELIEVE in. That has nothing to do with selfish self interest as you keep trying to twist it. You and I support the boy scouts and volunteer there because we BELIEVE in the value of the task.

Im finished with this thread. You're wasting everyone's time.

Bob, WB4APR

Robert, please, keep in mind that everyone working on building spacecraft is a volunteer. Nobody is paid to build a particular project, nor can they be expected to do so. Therefore, to some extent, he who does the work makes the rules.

At the same time, planners and buildings know full well that, without substantial Member support, projects won't be funded.

In the end, the best current interests of the Members and creative visions are weighed carefully by our elected Directors. The outcome, of necessity, includes many reasonable possibilities, with which reasonable people will agree and disagree. (I've seen the process first hand.)

Rather than engage in further dialog on BB, I suggest joining in the process by voting for your choice of Directors, coming to Board meetings, writing articles for the Journal with specific ideas, and following whatever other constructive paths come to mind to help the AMSAT mission succeed.

Don't criticize. PARTICIPATE!

I hope this helps.

73, art..... W4ART Arlington VA

On 24-Aug-2009, at 6:27 PM, Rocky Jones wrote:

Bob. I am not twisting any words

If the people believed in the amateur radio satellite service, they would build products that serve the interest of that group.

If they build something else, they are doing it for other reasons.

Robert WB5MZO

Well, I think I see the root of the problem:

I've been on a number of volunteer efforts... being President of the largest community association... being President of the School board... had far more consequences then Amsat can even imagine.

I have a pretty good idea of what "volunterism" on a corporate level means. ... The AMSAT BOD has no real comprehension of that concept... ... except for getting myself ... elected most of the people who I vote for dont...

Well, from your excellent vantage point on the top of a huge pile of volunteers actually doing the work, I think you do not have any idea how satellites actually get built and launched by volunteers with no pay or compensation.

Further, nothing of what you say in your vast experience has anything to do with the 5 or 6 guys working 12 and 16 hour days for months and years to get the thing designed, built, integrated, tested, and launched.

Turn that pyramid that you like to sit on the top of upside down, with yourself on the BOTTOM with say a few thousand kibitzers sitting on your shoulders each one with his own expectations about what YOU should be doing. And maybe you will see how many of the amateur satellites get built.

I do not in any way want to underestimate or denigrate the huge amount of work that many hundreds of AMSAT volunteers do to make our missions work. EVERYONE of them finds a niche where he or she can help... And they do the bulk of the routine work, But when it gets down to designing the circuits, the spacecraft and then building it and testing it, it is usually that small handful of top-talent that actually gets the job done.

Again, AMSAT has dozens of such top-talent volunteers, but only a small handful are available for any one project. Each satellite campaign takes a HUGE PERSONAL toll in marriages, family, work, and sanity, and often burns out these individuals for a while... And there is nothing more burning, then self-appointed top-down kibitzers who waste everyone's time with incessant harping and won't get out of the way and won't support the few rare opportunities that we might get.

Thank heavens for the huge majority of AMSAT volunteers who contribute and support the organization and the particular individuals at any one time who may have found a launch opportunity and are giving their lives to develop something to meet that unique opportunity.

Its the extremley rare free LAUNCH that determines the mission, which determines what we build, and no amount of kibitzing and whinning by a few keyboard-jockys is going to change that.

Bob, WB4APR

On top of that, it is inherently difficult, nay almost impossible, to become an AMSAT Volunteer - trust me, I have been trying for over a year now and have just about given up!

- David KG4ZLB www.kg4zlb.com

Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF wrote:

I think one of the problems volunteers face, which seems to have not been addresses, is one of geography.

The US is a big country. The existing volunteers are widespread. I work better as a member of a team rather than as an induvidual. I need a "normal" work environment. I'm inherently lazy and don't have the motovation to reliably work from home. I don't know of any active Amsat volunteers within, say, 30 miles of me, that I can team up with. Find me a project within 30 miles of Xenia, Ohio, in which I have some experience, and i will happily join the team.

Bob Bruninga wrote:

---

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

-

Hi Dave,

Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away, I completed the website Volunteer form only to hit submit and find the link was broken, I tried again and got the same result so I reported the broken link and then passed all my Volunteer details on to an AMSAT Board member. That really must have been about a year ago. I could probably offer (315) Telemetry Retrieval, (520) Help with the AMSAT Journal, and also the following headings as per the Volunteer web page:-

550 552 557 580 590 595 600 610 620 630

My Operating interests are:

400 410 440 - (I was part of a team that produced a successful ARISS school contact) 480 499

I come from an Investment Banking background so on that basis I could offer accounting/bookkeeping services. I can also offer (limited) web design or web maintenance skills etc.

When I got back from Dayton this year I spoke with Patrick (WD9EWK) about becoming an Area Coordinator (552) and he provided me with the name of the Board Member to whom I should address my request. That e-mail went out on June 19th to two senior members plus Patrick - no response.

Ho hum!

73

Bob...

Further, nothing of what you say in your vast experience has anything to do with the 5 or 6 guys working 12 and 16 hour days for months and years to get the thing designed, built, integrated, tested, and launched.

this is almost like " the shuttle and station dock at 17,500 mph"...

OK they work hard but one they are probably not doing 12-16 hour days endlessly (OK you didnt say that but thats implied(whats the job that pays the bills doing all this time?) and other people put in long hours volunteering. And they are not the only people in The Republic working 12 and 16 hour days.

I realize that the tendency is to make all volunteer efforts unique and special and all...but come on.

Turn that pyramid that you like to sit on the top of upside down, with yourself on the BOTTOM with say a few thousand kibitzers sitting on your shoulders each one with his own expectations about what YOU should be doing. And maybe you will see how many of the amateur satellites get built.

you dont have a clue about "kibitzers sitting on your shoulders each one with his (or her) own expectations about what YOU should be doing" until you have tried to manage a school board.

From the religious righters to the goodless lefties and a lot in between, everybody has their peculiar and passionate ideas about "how our children should be educated" and why The Republic will come crashing to a halt if "insert this thing here" isnt part of the school effort.

My father in law retired as a four star in the USN and his line to me after attending one of the school board meetings was "and I thought politics at the Pentagon were tough" (and he lived through the Cheney era).

Look, it is not all that special being on the school board, it just gives one a perspective. Nor is it all that special building ham satellites...it just is a unique perspective.. The urge to think it is the thing that qualifies one for "special treatment" or even understanding...., it is a product of a mindset that is killing space efforts across the board, it is the mindset that has driven NASA to the brink of collapse in human exploration efforts (and that is not just my conclusion, it is that of the Augustine Commission).

You and the other folks who have built the birds are to be commended for your work You have served both the community here and the USN and of course the USNA well beyond the call of duty.

But I dont care if satellite builders have to work 24 hours a day in terms of meeting their volunteer goals. Unless they are doing it by themselves, they have a responsibility to the membersship of the organization that makes their volunterism "possible:"\

and the Amsat BOD is so far out of touch, they might as well work in the shuttle program

Robert WB5MZO

_________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:W...

Hi Jim,

I have a Yaesu 736R, which is also blessed with 10 watts on L-band, though I think it's got a little more spunk than that. I run about 20m of 1/2" hardline with about 2-3m of RG8-ish cable (RG-213 or 214, I forget what it is) at each end for rotor flex and shack entry. There's also a Polyphaser lightning arrestor thingy in there too, which claims to be good to 1000mHz (close enough?), and all the associated connectors to put it all together. I've probably got at least as much loss as you are predicting. At the business end is a homemade 18 turn RHCP Helix. With this setup I have no trouble getting into AO-51 to within a few degrees of the horizon on the phone modes. (I don't have any 9.6k packet equipment for L-band, so I don't know how well the digital modes would work.)

The biggest problem for me isn't power, it's the trees around my house, which make the southerly parts of a pass hard to hit. It's not quite as bad as receiving on 2.4 ghz, but I definitely notice the effect.

Reading other's reports, your results may be different. The only sure way to find out is to try it!

Good luck,

Greg KO6TH

From: jimlist@milnet.uk.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:05:30 +0100 Subject: [amsat-bb] Use of ICOM 910 for AO-51 L-Band BBS Uplink?

Hi Folks,

I would be interested to know if anyone is using an ICOM 910 with the L-Band module for Ao-51 uplink on the BBS? (The optional L-Band unit for the 910 runs 10 watts according to the book).

I am particularly interested to know what type/gain of antenna I would need to get a reliable up link. I am planning to use about 20 metres of Ecoflex 10, which will introduce a loss of something like 3 Dbs.

I know that the LBand/Digital up link is currently off, just gettting ready for the next 'on' period!

73s

Jim G3WGM

---

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

_________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:W...