Hi Nate and all,

On 12/19/07, Nate Duehr nate@natetech.com wrote:

ARISS does a GREAT job even just having us "on board". Thanks guys. It's one of the only ways us astronaut "wanna-bees" can say we've ever interacted in a personal way with ISS... otherwise it's just something we know is up there and can see during certain passes when the sun angles are right. Watching the construction on NASA TV just isn't the same as having talked to someone "up there".

that's similiar for me, that's why sometimes I wonder if I can catch someone up there just to say HI :-) I only had a contact with ISS when Bill McArthur was up there. I just asked about the current situation because it's tiring to call all the time :-)

Thanks and 73 Francesco IZ8DWF

On Dec 19, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Joe Fitzgerald wrote:

Nate Duehr wrote:

...

It seems that during SAREX, more crews were active. ISS crews seem either a lot busier (less personal time for ham radio?) or are generally a lot less interested --

I had a chance to speak with our hometown astronaut Suni Williams recently, and she indicated that access to other forms of communication, specifically e-mail and VoIP phones, have become available to the astronauts making radio less interesting to those astronauts not already bitten by the ham bug.

-Joe KM1P

Makes sense, Joe.

The general idea expressed above is a major challenge for getting young (new) people into ham radio everywhere where there's decent IP network access.

The average Joe, or more importantly, Joe's kids even... can communicate with the world, in a multitude of ways now, worldwide, easier than operating any modern ham rig, even FM.

A couple of clicks of the mouse, and they're doing videoconferencing with $20 webcams -- something that only a few years back was only done with multi-thousand-dollar videoconferencing units. Let alone e-mail, IM, chat, and file transfers...

I've shown a few computer-savvy kids (who have their own multi-boot computers already set up at home, just for fun) the guts of IRLP on Linux systems, and they shrug and think it's pretty boring. The percentage that find radio interesting for radio (instead of the more common, "Wow you can talk to someone far away!" astonishment of the past), even when invited to a ham shack to see it in person, is diminishing, and I'm not sure that trend will slow down anytime soon. (Sad, isn't it?)

Kenneth's comment about the VoIP phone even has me more intrigued than the ham station, sadly enough. I want to know how they get the bandwidth up and down on the IP network! (GRIN) Is that a TDRSS function?

Knowing (since I work in telco on VoIP platforms and phones as one aspect of my work) what the bandwidth and latency requirements are for the IP network for a VoIP phone to work properly -- I now know there's "pretty good" data service to the ISS! (I wonder if it's documented anywhere, or if it's all classified...)

(Also makes me wonder who's VoIP phone got space qualified. GRIN!)

Sometimes it sucks to be overly-curious about these things! Curiosity killed the cat... or at least kept him awake nights Googling for info!

-- Nate Duehr, WY0X nate@natetech.com

Radio = boring

Launch your own satellite = wow! Send your own voice/photos to the Moon, Mars, ... How about radio controlled robots? On the Moon? Track your own rocket? Balloon Throw APRS into the dog's saddle bags = find out where he goes? Throw APRS on your boy/girl friend's car/bicycle = find out where they go? Talk with Astronauts = OK this is already done

All things that can be done with ham radio! Think outside the rice-box!

73 Ed - KL7UW

At 05:58 PM 12/19/2007, Joe Fitzgerald wrote:

Nate Duehr wrote:

...

The percentage that find radio interesting for radio (instead of the more common, "Wow you can talk to someone far away!" astonishment of the past), even when invited to a ham shack to see it in person, is diminishing, and I'm not sure that trend will slow down anytime soon.

Well, it is a tough sell from the communication only standpoint. My thesis is that we must sell ham radio on the idea that we can do our communication without the benefit of the infrastructure of billion dollar multinational corporations, but rather with our own equipment and the ionosphere (or the transponder that my fellow hams built) and know how. And when we are finished building our stations to allow us to talk to those hams on the other side of the world, what do we talk about? Our radios, antennas, transponders and/or the ionosphere!

...

. I want to know how they get the bandwidth up and down on the IP network! (GRIN) Is that a TDRSS function?

I am almost certain that it is, although now that you mention it I also wonder how they deal with latency.

-Joe KM1P _______________________________________________ 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

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 ======================================

At 04:29 AM 12/20/2007, Bruce Robertson wrote:

In this spirit, might I ask this list to imagine what needs to be done to make the emcomm/geo package a reality? The following is my rather long analysis of the situation.

I believe the proponents of the Intelsat agreement have done us a great service by identifying a real and persisting need which AMSAT can uniquely fulfill. By doing so, they not only greatly increase our chances of funding otherwise prohibitively expensive launches, they give our branch of the hobby a greater reason to do what we do.

However, I also think the EMCOMM branch of our hobby has different needs than the usual satellite station operator. If we are to really and honestly make the world a safer place and save lives, I think we will need to provide a GEO EMCOMM package that will require us as a organization to branch into some new and exciting efforts. Let me explain what I mean.

Traditionally, a satellite station has been developed through one person's expertise gradually growing regarding a number of interrelated aspects: low signal VHF and UHF operation; the mechanics of an az-el antenna array; computer control; and doppler correction. Certain satellites or operating habits allow one to omit one or more of these, but in general it's, even by ham standards, a challenging array of new skills and understanding. I'd say the members of AMSAT are self-selected as those who enjoy this challenge and seek to learn as many aspects of the field as possible.

However, for an EMCOMM system to be effective, it cannot rely on a broad array of such specialized knowledge: it is unreasonable to expect that the first ham on the scene of a disaster will be one of the AMSAT 'us', a person who has acquired this specialized knowledge. It is only reasonable to assume that it will be an amateur radio operator, familiar with the general principles of radio theory and operation. In fact, in my region the EMCOMM specialists and the technical specialists (if I might put it that way) are often not the same people.

So our challenge is more extensive than the challenge that faced AMSAT with any previous launch: we need to make communication through this bird possible for any ham shmoe who is opening up a box of equipment after, say an afternoon of instruction half a year ago. Please note, this is not a matter of dumbing-down the bird or making it uninteresting. In fact, for the old-hands and the technically adept around here this will be very interesting and a great outlet for our skills. In this application, if not on all birds, we should take it as a sign of success when people effortlessly get connected, because it would mean that, in a true emergency there would be a greater likelihood of useful service.

If this analysis is accurate, we need to imagine, broadly, three things: a) the services (or modes) this ham will offer to support EMCOMM; b) the box of stuff that this ham opens up; c) the afternoon's training she undertook to know how to use it. These are interrelated, of course. The training is apropos the box of stuff, and the box of stuff allows the services. They should also, I think, be *standardized* to an extent that has not been the case before with satellite work. Recently I heard the argument on Amateur Radio Newsline that ham EMCOMM services should be more interchangeable across the continent; the same will surely be the case regarding this work. Ideally the 'stuff' and the training is the same everywhere so that the shmoe has a chance of recollecting her training and is required to factor out/in as few local variables as possible.

The advantage we have is that it isn't unreasonable to expect the box of stuff to be perhaps more pricey than individual hams would like such things to be.

A large part of a) and b) will be determined by the ACP team, whose goal even with Eagle was to provide ground-station hardware alongside the bird's hardware. (The wisdom of this new approach should be applauded; I'm sure it has made re-purposing Eagle hardware for P4/EMCOMM much easier to imagine.) As I've argued before, I think one of the most important mode we can offer is simple Internet connectivity, allowing the emergency services folks to use the communication tools like email with which they are most familiar. I hope this will be part of the mix. As for the second half of b) and c), I think it will focus around designing and teaching the use of software. Perhaps the box of stuff will include a laptop that operates well with a specialized linux distribution-on-a-disk, including all the software tools needed to assess link quality, perform simple communication, etc. If I'm right, this is fortunate because we seem to have quite a number of adept software developers in our midst.

Finally, the course. Can we provide standard lesson-plans, ppt slides and the like? I think this would significantly lower the bar on each of us teaching a session on P4 to our local club or EMCOMM group.

I think we should spread the load on these tasks as early as possible, making many of us participants in the final goal of increasing the safety of our communities and nations. I'm excited to hear what others think about the broader implications of the P4 initiative and how we can deliver on the whole GEO package.

73, Bruce VE9QRP

Bruce,

This is an excellent topic to bring to the -bb.

Off course until the design of P4 has progressed, this is mostly speculation.

The EMCOMM radio package will most certainly drive the satellite requirements, as well.

The ground package needs to be: 1- compact (portable) 2- standardized (so diverse groups can assemble a package) 3- well documented (both for assembly and use) 4- versatile to power (anywhere in the world) 5- robust (to endure rough handling; harsh environments) 6- easy to interface (with computing hdwr; telco; other ham equipment) 7- simple to assemble and aim 8- affordable 9- kit or ready to use (within reason considering the technology)

This should probably be close to the same package that the apartment user will have. This would expand the volume of units made. design be made available to commercial sector to provide units (fitting the spec).

Hope this gives a starting point.

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 ======================================

At 12:29 AM 12/21/2007, Bruce Robertson wrote:

In this spirit, might I ask this list to imagine what needs to be done to make the emcomm/geo package a reality? The following is my rather long analysis of the situation.

Nice post Bruce, well thought out. :)

However, I also think the EMCOMM branch of our hobby has different needs than the usual satellite station operator. If we are to really and honestly make the world a safer place and save lives, I think we will need to provide a GEO EMCOMM package that will require us as a organization to branch into some new and exciting efforts. Let me explain what I mean.

Well I for one am excited at the prospects of this venture. As someone who participates regularly in international service nets (thanks to VoIP and the Internet), the possibility of a satellite based alternative path (i.e. redundancy) is of great interest to me, especially as it will be independent of traditional telco infrastructure.

Traditionally, a satellite station has been developed through one person's expertise gradually growing regarding a number of interrelated aspects: low signal VHF and UHF operation; the mechanics of an az-el antenna array; computer control; and doppler correction. Certain satellites or operating habits allow one to omit one or more of these, but in general it's, even by ham standards, a challenging array of new skills and understanding. I'd say the members of AMSAT are self-selected as those who enjoy this challenge and seek to learn as many aspects of the field as possible.

Agreed, and each satellite operator has different specialities. I'm not one for the mechanics of AZ/EL rotators and the like, but I am able to operate LEOs under difficult conditions.

However, for an EMCOMM system to be effective, it cannot rely on a broad array of such specialized knowledge: it is unreasonable to expect that the first ham on the scene of a disaster will be one of the AMSAT 'us', a person who has acquired this specialized knowledge. It is only reasonable to assume that it will be an amateur radio operator, familiar with the general principles of radio theory and operation. In fact, in my region the EMCOMM specialists and the technical specialists (if I might put it that way) are often not the same people.

Also, a disaster area may require a blending of technologies. VoIP has demonstrated this can be effective, and has shown some of the techniques. This knowledge can be applied to satellite based links (essentially replacing the Internet segment with a satellite segment). In other words, the ground station package needs to be versatile as well, and able to interoperate with other amateur infrastructure such as VHF/UHF simplex and repeater networks.

So our challenge is more extensive than the challenge that faced AMSAT with any previous launch: we need to make communication through this bird possible for any ham shmoe who is opening up a box of equipment after, say an afternoon of instruction half a year ago. Please note, this is not a matter of dumbing-down the bird or making it uninteresting. In fact, for the old-hands and the technically adept around here this will be very interesting and a great outlet for our skills. In this application, if not on all birds, we should take it as a sign of success when people effortlessly get connected, because it would mean that, in a true emergency there would be a greater likelihood of useful service.

I see it goes deeper than this, and we need to come up with a range of solutions, such as the following (not an exhaustive list) of examples...

End user ground station. Terrestrial repeater/VoIP to satellite link Terrestial data to satellite data link (could be used for email to the Internet, or eventually link amateur data networks to operators in the field) Terrestrial HF to satellite link

Each of these has different requirements, though at least the first two should be able to communicate with each other (HF SSB is notoriously difficult to link to anything, and may be best handled a different way initially). The first two could be considered analogous to an Echolink PC user and an Echolink or IRLP RF node in our VoIP systems. The HF one was thrown in as an exercise in lateral thinking, given that HF SSB to satellite based SSB may serve some purpose in specialised situations. That could potentially revolutionise nets such as the Travellers Net here in VK, which provides a point of contact for stations travelling in remote areas of the VK region.

If this analysis is accurate, we need to imagine, broadly, three things: a) the services (or modes) this ham will offer to support EMCOMM; b) the box of stuff that this ham opens up; c) the afternoon's training she undertook to know how to use it. These are interrelated, of course. The training is apropos the box of stuff, and the box of stuff allows the services. They should also, I think, be *standardized* to an extent that has not been the case before with satellite work. Recently I heard the argument on Amateur Radio Newsline that ham EMCOMM services should be more interchangeable across the continent; the same will surely be the case regarding this work. Ideally the 'stuff' and the training is the same everywhere so that the shmoe has a chance of recollecting her training and is required to factor out/in as few local variables as possible.

Why limit one to a single continent, in the world I operate, that's an excessively narrow limitation. We need _global_ standards, especially if the Intelsat deal goes all the way and we have global satellite coverage, and we need a package or packages that can fulfill the varied roles outlined above.

The advantage we have is that it isn't unreasonable to expect the box of stuff to be perhaps more pricey than individual hams would like such things to be.

Agreed, these are most likely to be purchased by groups. However, we still need some aspects of the P4 birds to be readily accessible to individual hams without needing deep pockets. :)

A large part of a) and b) will be determined by the ACP team, whose goal even with Eagle was to provide ground-station hardware alongside the bird's hardware. (The wisdom of this new approach should be applauded; I'm sure it has made re-purposing Eagle hardware for P4/EMCOMM much easier to imagine.) As I've argued before, I think one of the most important mode we can offer is simple Internet connectivity, allowing the emergency services folks to use the communication tools like email with which they are most familiar. I

Well, the importance of email is open to debate, and for some of us opens a potential can of worms, but I certainly agree that some level of data connectivity is needed. I see a particular technical challenge here in that the data connectivity needs to be versatile. Packet radio and Pactor are used heavily in these parts for emergency and service nets, alongside voice. I'm not aware of any traditional email use.

Finally, the course. Can we provide standard lesson-plans, ppt slides and the like? I think this would significantly lower the bar on each of us teaching a session on P4 to our local club or EMCOMM group.

This would make sense.

I think we should spread the load on these tasks as early as possible, making many of us participants in the final goal of increasing the safety of our communities and nations. I'm excited to hear what others think about the broader implications of the P4 initiative and how we can deliver on the whole GEO package.

This may open a whole new era. It also makes the package more attractive to Intelsat as well, as they stand to gain a lot of good publicity from supporting these goals. And if they gain more, then it's more likely to go ahead and proceed to full implementation.

73 de VK3JED http://vkradio.com

Bruce,

Excellent commentary!

I'm heavily involved with emcomm, and I have managed to generate some interest in the local group regarding satellites. That said, there are some show stoppers, at least when using LEO birds. It take a fair amount of theoretical understanding to get to the point where operating practice can yield functional capability.

I'm having quite a training load just getting all of our members functional with APRS and Winlink as well a voice net procedures, it will be some time before the group is ready to tackle satellite operations. If/when P4 Lite becomes a reality, integrating it into the emcomm system will be more than just being able to point a dish at the bird and getting a link going. Even with the best digital modulation technologies bandwidth will still be limited, smart operators on the ground prioritizing traffic routing will be essential. P4 Lite will not make any current emcomm technologies obsolete, it will be an additional tool in the communicators toolbox (albeit a nice shiny chrome plated tool with ergonomic gel cushion handles <grin>). P4 Lite will move the skill set from just being satellite operators to being communications system managers. I'll bet there will be challenge enough for all.

I think that the ARRL Amateur Radio Emergency Communications Course (ARECC) is a good functional template to start with. Hopefully, there will be opportunities for guys like me who can't help with satellite construction, but who can put together a coherent English sentence (present e-mail missive EXCLUDED <grin>) to get involved with developing the courseware.

Vy 73,

John AA2BN AMSAT #22683

The Kenwood on ISS is very simple to use with the preset PMs and channels (two button pushes to start talking). The Ericsson (GE MP/A) is still onboard the ISS with its simple knobs and channels so it too is available for use by any crewmember. I do not think complexity is a reason for them not being active.

The Shuttle missions were very short duration so they were crammed packed with activities and the crews were geared to get as much done as possible in short periods of time. The first few SAREX missions were initiated by ham radio operators that were astronauts. The later were astronauts who got licensed to support the educational contacts and sometimes made random contacts during periods of off duty time. Back then, the Shuttle crews didn't have email, DVDs or the IP Phone so the ham radio was a way to have contact with folks on the ground.

The ISS missions are long duration and the crews work at a bit more relaxed pace and have a reasonable amount of free time. They also have a lot more choices of what they can do during that free time than their Shuttle counterparts had. Many enjoy taking photos, reading and sending emails, reading electronic books, watching DVDs and talking to friends on the IP Phone in addition to video teleconferences with their family. With all those choices, they don't use the ham radio unless they are making educational contacts, actually interested in talking to people on the ground or nearing the end of their mission and become curious.

We will have other interested crew members in the future so you may have a shot at an astronaut on orbit QSO but I agree that they are few and far between. Think of them as rare DX, patience and preparedness usually will get you the contact.

Kenneth - N5VHO

-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:40 AM To: Amsat-Bb Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ISS crew ham contacts?

On Dec 18, 2007, at 5:25 AM, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:

It depends on the crew how active the ISS is. The current crew is not very active. When they are, you can find them on 2 meters.

It seems that during SAREX, more crews were active. ISS crews seem either a lot busier (less personal time for ham radio?) or are generally a lot less interested -- other than the few "superstars" who usually were already hams or had always wanted to be before going to ISS. I would hazard a guess that those few astronauts who enjoyed working the station on ISS have probably worked far more contacts than the rest of the crews combined.

I understand and am not complaining in any way -- just an observation of how it seems to work out these days.

There are quite a few more school contacts too, and those are certainly a great way to get involved and help a school out at the same time. Engineering a good setup for a school contact seems like it would be a neat challenge for many here on the list.

Additionally, I often wonder if the switch to using the Kenwood had a negative effect by accident. Reading up on the ISS station details, I think it's been excellent for having more options for pre-configured modes, but I think that reading between the lines on some of the posts/ updates from folks who are "in the know" on the ARISS team, I am led to believe that some of the Astronauts are wary of the more complex Kenwood setup.

It was REALLY hard to screw up the GE MP/A's that flew during SAREX... all they had was a rotary channel selector on top, a PTT on the headset cord, and a power switch. There's always something to be said for a simple user interface and the KISS principle. They were pre- programmed and virtually nothing could "go wrong". They were very simple compared to the Kenwood, which is a typical "ham" rig. Lots of buttons, modes and "stuff" that most astronauts simply don't have time for.

Sitting here looking at my VHF MP/A, and I find myself still using it quite often -- radios originally built for Public Safety/Commercial applications just have a lot less "stuff" to mess with and or to worry about "messing up". (And it was great to see the venerable old MP/A in the IMAX footage quite some time ago.)

I've often wondered if the current crop of astronauts feels a little "intimidated' by the Kenwood station?

Of course, other (sad) options might be that with MS Outlook (and crappy .pst files being transferred up/down) handling the e-mail chores these days, (complete with constant crashes and reboots of laptops... seems like it's about time someone put a real mail server on-board... Postfix would do nicely along with a ton of other options) they don't feel as much need for a way to "reconnect" with folks down here on Terra.

It could also be that the current generation of astronauts grew up in the post-radio-awe era (without a better name for it) where they just don't have that same feeling about the "magic of radio" that we do.

Just thoughts... nothing negative meant by any of the above.

The only long-term question/thought would be that it might be a good idea if radio station changes are ever planned in the future -- perhaps space-qualifying something a little less "complex" than a typical ham-grade Kenwood... which I hear is an expensive process (and generally a pain to do anyway)... might help. Numbered channels pre- programmed is the typical astronaut's level of understanding of the radio gear... other than their flight training... but even when flying aircraft, the button to set the radio frequency does ONE thing at a time... the Kenwood dual-bander probably "looks" complex to someone who's never used one before.

The cross-band repeat mode of the Kenwood certainly has been indispensable when it's been active, though -- and that's not going to be found in anything commercial really. Not without going to two rigs and associated cabling mess.)

Just thinking out loud. I have no association or input to anyone on the ARISS team, nor do I have any clue just how hard it is to get a ham rig through NASA's qualification programs and safety programs.

ARISS does a GREAT job even just having us "on board". Thanks guys. It's one of the only ways us astronaut "wanna-bees" can say we've ever interacted in a personal way with ISS... otherwise it's just something we know is up there and can see during certain passes when the sun angles are right. Watching the construction on NASA TV just isn't the same as having talked to someone "up there".

-- Nate Duehr, WY0X nate@natetech.com

_______________________________________________ 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