... it says " the X-Y pedestal has its limitations at low elevation

angles

(< 2°) around 90° and 270° in azimuth." which ... is West and East

My bad. Our XY here is N and S. So I "assumed" that was what they all were. But E and W would seem to be worse because you have the problem on both assending and descending passes that cross east -or- west. Where as with N/S, nothing much passes North.

Oops, wrong again. I am remembering our problems with the SHUTTLE on 28 deg launches so all passes always were to the south, never north. So we only had to deal with low southern pass problems. But with ISS in a 52 degree inclined orbit, then it goes north just as much as south.

Ah, Ha, Maybe E/W is best, then, since the only time you are down low on the horizon to the due east or due west, the entire pass is so low it probably isn’t worth bothering with anway!

So ignore my stream of consciousness. Looks like they did their homework and so they have a good design with E/W axis and it will not be a problem.

On the other hand, as I suggested before, the number of times that an AZ/EL gets into trouble directly overhead (when the signal is so strong one doesn’t even need a beam anways) is so exceedllingly small with typical LEO passes, it might not be worth changing.

Not saying either is better. Just filling in some details to think about. Thakns for the correction about the E/W. Also I have not read the link, so you can ignore anything I say too... <wink>

Bob