OBSERVATIONS FROM NORWAY. 26-04-2007.
INTERNET REMOTE BASE STATIONS FOR SATELLITES.
Love 'em or hate 'em ... IRB'as are a part of amateur radio.
So ... why would LA2QAA want to use one?. Well, they can! be used for operating satellites.
On a recent (unsheduled) visit to the local horse-spittle ... (I don't like these places, they're always full of sick! people) ... the surgeons positively refused !! to allow me to set up the satellite array in the intensive care unit while they performed renovation work on the pig's heart in LA2QAA's chest ... (oink!).
(PAPPA INDIA GOLF as in smoked bacon, not two legged creature with badge).
Their excuse was that the rotor noise might disturb the other patients snoring ... so lying connected to various hospital type spectrum analysers and other pieces of apparatus has a tendency to put a serious crimp in satellite operating for a while and it initiated the reasoning behind why LA2QAA might want to use an IRB, to get round the issue of being denied aerial privilages.
The following is a short article destined for the Observations from Norway pages on http://observations.biz
........................................................................................................................
AMATEUR SATELLITES AND IRB's
(IRB station = Internet Remote Base station).
FOR PEOPLE WISHING TO OPERATE AMATEUR SATELLITES BUT DON'T HAVE THE EQUIPMENT OR KNOW-HOW.
(The know-how can be found elsewhere on this website).
Visitors to the http://www.observations.biz/ web page will soon become aware that LA2QAA & GM1SXX are always trying to help newcomers to amateur satellite operating by providing hints and tips in their satellite related articles.
Two of the main excuses used by potential newcomers for *NOT* operating on satellites are ...
1) The sophisticated equipment that is necessary is too expensive ...
and ...
2) I don't have the possibility of erecting rotatable beams ...
The facts are, neither of the above arguments are valid because ...
1) You don't *NEED* sophisticated equipment ...
and ...
2) Rotatable beams are *NOT* necessary to work satellites that are in low earth orbit (LEO).
While it is true that AMSAT (The Amateur Satellite Corporation) prefer to promote satellites with "cutting edge" technology that require expensive equipment, there ARE satellites that only require relatively simple equipment ... a flying FM repeater like AO-51 and analogue ... (CW/SSB) ... satellites like AO-7 and VO-52.
Even if you don't have the necessary equipment at home to use any of these satellites, providing you have access to the Internet with at least a 300bps modem (preferably faster) you *CAN* work these satellites using only your computer!!.
Unlike Echolink, which is a 100% Internet based system, an IRB (Internet Remote Base) station transmits and receives via the ionosphere just like any "normal" amateur radio and aerial system. You only connect via the Internet to the remote base station ... the IRB transmits and receives your signal to and from the satellite via the ionosphere.
You can control all aspects of the remote rig directly from your computer keyboard or even use a 3G mobile phone. (LA2QAA has actually done it like this using Remote Desktop for Mobile phones software).
With the VK3UR IRB you can even turn the 70cm aerial remotely as well as choosing an appropriate power level setting, different modes, filters, adjust AF and RF gain etc just as if you were actually sitting in front of the rig. The VK3UR IRB uses a TS2000 transceiver so there are a lot of options.
Before reading further, it would be advisable to read "HOW MUCH POWER IS ENOUGH", part 1 on ...
HOW TO OPERATE THE VK3UR REMOTE BASE STATION FOR AO-7.
First ... read the instructions !!! and familiarise yourself with the rig's controls for changing frequency and the use of filters, operating modes and rotor control etc.
Next, tune the TX to 432.150 Mhz LSB, press "S" on your keyboard, this will put the radio into SPLIT mode, then tune the RX to 145.941 Mhz USB ... make sure you have a suitable tracking program on your desktop that calculates the azimuth and elevation as well as the necessary doppler offset. (LA2QAA uses NOVA). Now you can remotely turn the 70cm yagi towards AO-7 and operate just as if you were operating from your own shack.
REMEMBER !!! ... set up your tracking software QTH as Victoria, Australia ... *NOT* your home QTH ... otherwise the passes will be (literally) half a world !! off.
Also remember ... to stay legal, you have to identify at least every 10 minutes so you operate with the callsign VK3/YOUR CALL ... it is advisable to mention you're operating via the VK3UR IRB in Victoria, Australia so that the Ozzies don't think you're a pirate playing Silly Sods.
The coordinates for VK3UR are ... 37 degrees, 33 minutes, 43 seconds SOUTH and 143 degrees, 49 minutes, 7 seconds EAST in Victoria, Australia. (Enter these coordinate into your tracking program).
At the time of writing (24-04-07) the IRB is not set up for FULL duplex operation but you should have no trouble at all working ANALOGUE LEO satellites like AO-7 or VO-52 using this method. The station is already set up for FM use with automatic doppler tracking and tuning for AO-51 or The ISS ... (see the SETUP menu "special settings", satellite operations).
As well as having the radio interface on my desktop I have NOVA + the doppler corrections visible. Of course, this won't be FULL duplex operation but you won't have any problem at all working ANALOGUE satellites with this set-up.
As with all satellite operating ... get into the habit of using those rather wierd things stuck to the side of your head ... (he means EARS, folks). LISTEN before you speak. Where appropriate, listen to the beacon BEFORE transmitting and "guesstimate" your power accordingly ... (now you know why FULL duplex is recommended for operating via satellite).
Actually, the MONITOR facility "could" be used if the IRB software was "tweaked" slightly.
You can obtain a password for operating the VK3UR IRB by sending the owner a copy of your current licence ... (providing it's a reciprocal licence with VK) ... to dave@daves-portal.com
The service requires no registration or donation fee.
Have fun!.
73 LA2QAA John. la2qaa@amsat.org .......................................................................................................................................
One very useful feature is that an IRB in a location remote from your normal operating position allows you to perform propagation comparisons.
Another is ... (in my particular case) ... soon after I lose AO-7 on certain passes at Frei Island, Norway ... (home QTH) ... I can pick it up again from Reston, Virginia ... (IRB).
The main advantage next to the aerial restriction issue is that an IRB allows those amateurs whom don't have the necessary equipment to try their hand at satellite operation, therefore, hopefully, bringing in some new recruits.
73 John. la2qaa@amsat.org
gOn Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 04:39:24PM +0200, John Hackett wrote:
OBSERVATIONS FROM NORWAY. 26-04-2007. INTERNET REMOTE BASE STATIONS FOR SATELLITES. Love 'em or hate 'em ... IRB'as are a part of amateur radio. So ... why would LA2QAA want to use one?. Well, they can! be used for operating satellites.
Moving forward, we are going to see much more of this kind of operation in amateur radio so it only follows that amateur satellite enthusiasts would get onboard as well. It's use is, of course, not without debate. In the radio (HF) contesting world there has been a long and vigorous conversation about how contest rules should apply to a guy who builds a super station on one continent and operates it from another, etc.
But those pesky details have more to do with the competitive nature of that radiosport than technicalities. Obviously, it works...
I went to the local university planetarium a few nights ago (Ball State University) and learned that BSU has joined with an organization (SARA) of schools that operates an observatory near Kitt Peak. It can be completely operated remotely via the Internet (open the dome turn and focus the telescopes, take images, etc.). It seems like a marvelous way to co-op the expense of an observatory.
But the goal of that exercise is to study the heavens -- not to learn how to build telescopes and observatories, and being able to do it from a remote location is an advantage.
When it comes to amateur satellites, I think many of us would say that our goal is to experiment, study, learn and enjoy the excitement of communications via space-based assets. Without actually building a radio station, I'm not sure how much can be learned from operating a station remotely over the Internet?
[I'll completely leave aside the more obvious questions about the sensibility of having untrained, unrestriced newbies making hash of the satellite passband]
Perhaps this is all about goals then ... if your goal is to simply communicate via a satellite, then the remote base concept is perfectly valid and it has been demonstrated that it works.
If the goal is to learn how to build a groundstation and then optimize it for use with satellites, then I'm not sure this will do that (unless of course you are the one building the station).
I see it like a calculator and a slide rule ... the calculator works great, you just punch in some numbers and the correct result pops out. But the slide rule allows one to see the underlying mathematics taking shape as it is moved to the same answer.
Which way is "better" must be self-determined.
73,
At 03:29 AM 4/27/2007, you wrote:
Perhaps this is all about goals then ... if your goal is to simply communicate via a satellite, then the remote base concept is perfectly valid and it has been demonstrated that it works.
If the goal is to learn how to build a groundstation and then optimize it for use with satellites, then I'm not sure this will do that (unless of course you are the one building the station).
I think you're right. Goals are where it's at, and being in the other VoIP games in town (IRLP, Echolink and friends), I regularly encounter the same debate. If my goal is to simply communicate via some (at least partly) amateur controlled medium, these modes and IRBs are fine, whether I have RF or a PC on my end. OTOH, if my goal is to play with RF, investigate propagation and setup a working satellite ground station, then it's time to pull out some radio gear, antennas and rotators and put them on the air (though for long and complicated reasons, I'm also likely to interface that to IRLP or my own IRB, because where I have the best space to erect antennas is 24km from where I mostly operate).
I see it like a calculator and a slide rule ... the calculator works great, you just punch in some numbers and the correct result pops out. But the slide rule allows one to see the underlying mathematics taking shape as it is moved to the same answer.
Which way is "better" must be self-determined.
Exactly, horses for courses. :)
73 de VK3JED http://vkradio.com
I'm having to sell off my gear because of very little time to operate and some pressing debts. Are IRB's a possible way for me to make an occasional sat contact? Just Curious, Michael , W4HIJ Tony Langdon wrote:
At 03:29 AM 4/27/2007, you wrote:
Perhaps this is all about goals then ... if your goal is to simply communicate via a satellite, then the remote base concept is perfectly valid and it has been demonstrated that it works.
If the goal is to learn how to build a groundstation and then optimize it for use with satellites, then I'm not sure this will do that (unless of course you are the one building the station).
I think you're right. Goals are where it's at, and being in the other VoIP games in town (IRLP, Echolink and friends), I regularly encounter the same debate. If my goal is to simply communicate via some (at least partly) amateur controlled medium, these modes and IRBs are fine, whether I have RF or a PC on my end. OTOH, if my goal is to play with RF, investigate propagation and setup a working satellite ground station, then it's time to pull out some radio gear, antennas and rotators and put them on the air (though for long and complicated reasons, I'm also likely to interface that to IRLP or my own IRB, because where I have the best space to erect antennas is 24km from where I mostly operate).
I see it like a calculator and a slide rule ... the calculator works great, you just punch in some numbers and the correct result pops out. But the slide rule allows one to see the underlying mathematics taking shape as it is moved to the same answer.
Which way is "better" must be self-determined.
Exactly, horses for courses. :)
73 de VK3JED http://vkradio.com
At 02:59 PM 4/26/2007, Tony Langdon wrote:
At 03:29 AM 4/27/2007, you wrote:
Perhaps this is all about goals then ... if your goal is to simply communicate via a satellite, then the remote base concept is perfectly valid and it has been demonstrated that it works.
If the goal is to learn how to build a groundstation and then optimize it for use with satellites, then I'm not sure this will do that (unless of course you are the one building the station).
I think you're right. Goals are where it's at, and being in the other VoIP games in town (IRLP, Echolink and friends), I regularly encounter the same debate. If my goal is to simply communicate via some (at least partly) amateur controlled medium, these modes and IRBs are fine, whether I have RF or a PC on my end. OTOH, if my goal is to play with RF, investigate propagation and setup a working satellite ground station, then it's time to pull out some radio gear, antennas and rotators and put them on the air (though for long and complicated reasons, I'm also likely to interface that to IRLP or my own IRB, because where I have the best space to erect antennas is 24km from where I mostly operate).
I see it like a calculator and a slide rule ... the calculator works great, you just punch in some numbers and the correct result pops out. But the slide rule allows one to see the underlying mathematics taking shape as it is moved to the same answer.
Which way is "better" must be self-determined.
Exactly, horses for courses. :)
73 de VK3JED http://vkradio.com
We have seen this debate here in Alaska with the '"diehard" (read this also as the super pro-CW) ham disliking anything dealing with marriage between the Internet and ham radio. Remote base stations are a separate case in my opinion. Hams have constructed remote base stations using all sort of linking technology. I am fine with this. I am an amateur radio astronomer and quite familiar with some of the Internet remote telescopes. Its a great way for folks to participate in activity using equipment beyond their means.
So I have no problem with remote bases linked by IRLB, echolink, or like technology. As long as any records, contest entry reflects the actual radio transmitter QTH.
How about a Lunar Remote Base?
73, Ed - KL7UW ====================================== BP40IQ 50-MHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com 144-EME: FT-847, mgf-1801, 4x-xpol-20, 185w DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa@hotmail.com ======================================
On 4/26/07, Edward Cole kl7uw@acsalaska.net wrote:
We have seen this debate here in Alaska with the '"diehard" (read this also as the super pro-CW) ham disliking anything dealing with marriage between the Internet and ham radio.
I don't think my position could be considered "diehard" and as the operator of IRLP node 4212 I have no problem with the "marriage between the Internet and ham radio." In fact, I think it serves a great purpose and I use it daily. I wish we had a weekly AMSAT Net via Echolink or IRLP so we could use such technologies to further discuss the future of ham radio in space (anyone want to join me?) without the vagaries of HF propagation.
But I think that there are certain facets of the hobby, like satellites and EME and probably others, where folks get involved specifically for the technology. Would a homebrewer without access to a soldering pin be content to watch others build equipment on a live video feed? Would there be a thrill in logging on to a super station on another continent from your laptop and working moonbounce?
Unless one is a skeptic that this sort of thing (EME) actually takes place and just needs some proof, I think we all believe that with the right equipment the deed CAN be done, but the challenge is in doing it.
So I have no problem with remote bases linked by IRLB, echolink, or like technology. As long as any records, contest entry reflects the actual radio transmitter QTH.
The amateur satellite world has a unique problem. It doesn't work well without satellites and those cost money to build and to launch. If we were to setup a dozen super stations around the world, all fully accessible via the internet -- and few built their own stations anymore, will those Internet users financially support future AMSAT projects?
If your entire investment in amateur radio is the laptop that you already own, are you as inclined to support costly future projects as the operator who has invested perhaps thousands of dollars and hours of labor in assembling and building a world class groundstation?
I think there is some evidence that they do not...
20 years ago there was a very popular idea that AMSAT should focus on EZ-Sats because that would get more people involved with amateur satellites since all they would need to operate them was a handheld transceiver. Soon, we had all kinds of new operators using the flying FM repeater satellites but curiously, AMSAT membership took a nose dive from which it has yet to recover.
Perhaps making everything as "easy" as just logging on to a remote station isn't such a good idea either?
Jeff, KE9V
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Davis" jl.davis@gmail.com
If the goal is to learn how to build a groundstation and then optimize it for use with satellites, then I'm not sure this will do that (unless of course you are the one building the station).
FWIW I am hoping that a current project takes off where I will be responsible for the computer / internet side.
A well-situated 10m dish will be used for EME and satellites, if I get my act together (and get an excellent web-programmer friend interested) then it will be available via internet with both audio and video feeds.
I do agree that the most interesting thing about satellites is building a station (and writing the software).
Myself I am looking forward to P3E to use from home.
http://www.hb9drv.ch/webcam.htm
Simon HB9DRV
----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Brown (HB9DRV)" simon@hb9drv.ch
A well-situated 10m dish will be used for EME and satellites, if I get my act together (and get an excellent web-programmer friend interested) then it will be available via internet with both audio and video feeds.
I have just downloaded and installed the free version of BroadWave Streaming Audio Server from http://www.nch.com.au/streaming/index.html - this is excellent, why not try it if you have a public IP. Let others listen to you :-)
Currently just tied to my TS-2000 which is listening to white noise.
Simon 'must get a life' HB9DRV
Hello Jeff, Very eloquently put, your mail was a credit to this bbs and of course I agree with you 100%. Personally, I'm completely self-taught and operate a 100% home brew satellite station. My intention was to breach the ... "can't afford it" ... excuse. Your point about possible congestion on the bands is a very good one indeed.
Have a nice day.
73 John. la2qaa@amsat.org ...............................................................................................................................
From: Jeff Davis jl.davis@gmail.com Reply-To: jl.davis@gmail.com To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: IRB's and Satellites. Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:29:52 +0000
gOn Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 04:39:24PM +0200, John Hackett wrote:
OBSERVATIONS FROM NORWAY. 26-04-2007. INTERNET REMOTE BASE STATIONS FOR SATELLITES. Love 'em or hate 'em ... IRB'as are a part of amateur radio. So ... why would LA2QAA want to use one?. Well, they can! be used for operating satellites.
Moving forward, we are going to see much more of this kind of operation in amateur radio so it only follows that amateur satellite enthusiasts would get onboard as well. It's use is, of course, not without debate. In the radio (HF) contesting world there has been a long and vigorous conversation about how contest rules should apply to a guy who builds a super station on one continent and operates it from another, etc.
But those pesky details have more to do with the competitive nature of that radiosport than technicalities. Obviously, it works...
I went to the local university planetarium a few nights ago (Ball State University) and learned that BSU has joined with an organization (SARA) of schools that operates an observatory near Kitt Peak. It can be completely operated remotely via the Internet (open the dome turn and focus the telescopes, take images, etc.). It seems like a marvelous way to co-op the expense of an observatory.
But the goal of that exercise is to study the heavens -- not to learn how to build telescopes and observatories, and being able to do it from a remote location is an advantage.
When it comes to amateur satellites, I think many of us would say that our goal is to experiment, study, learn and enjoy the excitement of communications via space-based assets. Without actually building a radio station, I'm not sure how much can be learned from operating a station remotely over the Internet?
[I'll completely leave aside the more obvious questions about the sensibility of having untrained, unrestriced newbies making hash of the satellite passband]
Perhaps this is all about goals then ... if your goal is to simply communicate via a satellite, then the remote base concept is perfectly valid and it has been demonstrated that it works.
If the goal is to learn how to build a groundstation and then optimize it for use with satellites, then I'm not sure this will do that (unless of course you are the one building the station).
I see it like a calculator and a slide rule ... the calculator works great, you just punch in some numbers and the correct result pops out. But the slide rule allows one to see the underlying mathematics taking shape as it is moved to the same answer.
Which way is "better" must be self-determined.
73,
Jeff, KE9V _______________________________________________ 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
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Music http://music.msn.no Finn din favorittmusikk blant nesten 1 million låter
participants (8)
-
Edward Cole -
Jeff Davis -
Jeff Davis, KE9V
-
John Hackett -
john hackett -
Michael Tondee -
Simon Brown (HB9DRV) -
Tony Langdon