... launch opportunities are so rare that we ought to
fly the most capable equipment we can on those rare occasions when we can get a launch ...
Perhaps we should define, "most capable equipment." And we also need to define "bang for the buck."
What should a ham satellite program offer to the amateur community? If bringing new hams into this aspect of the hobby is important, then we need another AO-51 - which was probably the greatest marketing tool ever seen in the amateur satellite community. Its ease of use was the cause of scores of media alerts and publicity for amateur radio. And most importantly, it got more people looking skyward and thinking they could work amateur satellites than any other project.
Then there was the marvelous marketing surrounding ARISSat-1 ...
What else should an amateur satellite program offer? Many here want satellites that are only accessible with an investment of many hundreds of dollars' worth of antenna systems and equipment. (Some would actually love it if Technicians weren't allowed - that's how extreme thinking is on this topic.) Is THAT what will move the hobby forward for the masses?
IS there a "middle ground?" Sure is a polarized topic (pun intended). Some want the hobby and sat use to grow ... others want to exclude as many fellow hams as possible.
Clint Bradford K6LCS http://www.work-sat.com
---------------------------------- Clint Bradford, K6LCS http://www.clintbradford.com
If we want the most "bang for the buck", it would be something that supports the most QSOs per watt of solar power. Since most hams have computers, something that supports half a dozen PSK31 sessions would suffice. Given the new open-source voice codec you could also make something that supports multiple digital voice QSOs with less power than now required for analog FM or SSB.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Clint Bradford" [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 00:27 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
... launch opportunities are so rare that we ought to
fly the most capable equipment we can on those rare occasions when we can get a launch ...
Perhaps we should define, "most capable equipment." And we also need to define "bang for the buck."
I've enjoyed reading this segment and I wasn't going to touch it, but this one makes me want to chip in my two cents.
Granted, I'm not up to speed on what ya'll have done or what you haven't done.
But we used to use a ucc1 in the navy to receive messages.
http://www.virhistory.com/navy/rtty-mux-ucc1.htm
It would allow us to receive something like 16 or 32 separate traffic channels on one frequency.
Wouldn't it be possible to develop something like that in satellite communications?
I ask because if you were to do it, you could substantially increase the amount of channels that you could process?
Virgil N5IVV
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Stephensen Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:31 PM To: Clint Bradford; [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
If we want the most "bang for the buck", it would be something that supports the most QSOs per watt of solar power. Since most hams have computers, something that supports half a dozen PSK31 sessions would suffice. Given the new open-source voice codec you could also make something that supports multiple digital voice QSOs with less power than now required for analog FM or SSB.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Clint Bradford" [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 00:27 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
... launch opportunities are so rare that we ought to
fly the most capable equipment we can on those rare occasions when we can get a launch ...
Perhaps we should define, "most capable equipment." And we also need to define "bang for the buck."
_______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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
The satellite could collect the individual uplink signals and package them in one downlink. One TDM downlink would use much less power than FDM downlinks and would fit in the bandwidth of existing amateur receivers. Once you have DSP in the satellite, there are a lot of possibilities.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Virgil Bierschwale" [email protected] To: "'John Stephensen'" [email protected]; "'Clint Bradford'" [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 01:52 UTC Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
I've enjoyed reading this segment and I wasn't going to touch it, but this one makes me want to chip in my two cents.
Granted, I'm not up to speed on what ya'll have done or what you haven't done.
But we used to use a ucc1 in the navy to receive messages.
http://www.virhistory.com/navy/rtty-mux-ucc1.htm
It would allow us to receive something like 16 or 32 separate traffic channels on one frequency.
Wouldn't it be possible to develop something like that in satellite communications?
I ask because if you were to do it, you could substantially increase the amount of channels that you could process?
Virgil N5IVV
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Stephensen Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:31 PM To: Clint Bradford; [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
If we want the most "bang for the buck", it would be something that supports the most QSOs per watt of solar power. Since most hams have computers, something that supports half a dozen PSK31 sessions would suffice. Given the new open-source voice codec you could also make something that supports multiple digital voice QSOs with less power than now required for analog FM or SSB.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Clint Bradford" [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 00:27 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
... launch opportunities are so rare that we ought to
fly the most capable equipment we can on those rare occasions when we can get a launch ...
Perhaps we should define, "most capable equipment." And we also need to define "bang for the buck."
Sent via [email protected]. 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
You also could develop a whole new line of amateur radio equipment.
By that, I mean that ham's could use existing transceivers, and for satellites that were equipped, they could buy this box that would allow them to transmit on channel ?? of frequency ?? and the same on receive.
Of course, that might present a co-ordination nightmare...
Virgil N5IVV
-----Original Message----- From: John Stephensen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 9:25 PM To: Virgil Bierschwale; 'Clint Bradford'; [email protected] Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
The satellite could collect the individual uplink signals and package them in one downlink. One TDM downlink would use much less power than FDM downlinks and would fit in the bandwidth of existing amateur receivers. Once you have DSP in the satellite, there are a lot of possibilities.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Virgil Bierschwale" [email protected] To: "'John Stephensen'" [email protected]; "'Clint Bradford'" [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 01:52 UTC Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
I've enjoyed reading this segment and I wasn't going to touch it, but this one makes me want to chip in my two cents.
Granted, I'm not up to speed on what ya'll have done or what you haven't done.
But we used to use a ucc1 in the navy to receive messages.
http://www.virhistory.com/navy/rtty-mux-ucc1.htm
It would allow us to receive something like 16 or 32 separate traffic channels on one frequency.
Wouldn't it be possible to develop something like that in satellite communications?
I ask because if you were to do it, you could substantially increase the amount of channels that you could process?
Virgil N5IVV
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Stephensen Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:31 PM To: Clint Bradford; [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
If we want the most "bang for the buck", it would be something that supports the most QSOs per watt of solar power. Since most hams have computers, something that supports half a dozen PSK31 sessions would suffice. Given the new open-source voice codec you could also make something that supports multiple digital voice QSOs with less power than now required for analog FM or SSB.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Clint Bradford" [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 00:27 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
... launch opportunities are so rare that we ought to
fly the most capable equipment we can on those rare occasions when we can get a launch ...
Perhaps we should define, "most capable equipment." And we also need to define "bang for the buck."
Sent via [email protected]. 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
New equipment wouldn't be needed. The concept is to use the PCs that amateurs already have to fit more QSOs into the downlink. Uplink frequency coordination isn't any harder than on AO10, 13 or 40.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Virgil Bierschwale" [email protected] To: "'John Stephensen'" [email protected]; "'Clint Bradford'" [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 03:13 UTC Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
You also could develop a whole new line of amateur radio equipment.
By that, I mean that ham's could use existing transceivers, and for satellites that were equipped, they could buy this box that would allow them to transmit on channel ?? of frequency ?? and the same on receive.
Of course, that might present a co-ordination nightmare...
Virgil N5IVV
-----Original Message----- From: John Stephensen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 9:25 PM To: Virgil Bierschwale; 'Clint Bradford'; [email protected] Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
The satellite could collect the individual uplink signals and package them in one downlink. One TDM downlink would use much less power than FDM downlinks and would fit in the bandwidth of existing amateur receivers. Once you have DSP in the satellite, there are a lot of possibilities.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Virgil Bierschwale" [email protected] To: "'John Stephensen'" [email protected]; "'Clint Bradford'" [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 01:52 UTC Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
I've enjoyed reading this segment and I wasn't going to touch it, but this one makes me want to chip in my two cents.
Granted, I'm not up to speed on what ya'll have done or what you haven't done.
But we used to use a ucc1 in the navy to receive messages.
http://www.virhistory.com/navy/rtty-mux-ucc1.htm
It would allow us to receive something like 16 or 32 separate traffic channels on one frequency.
Wouldn't it be possible to develop something like that in satellite communications?
I ask because if you were to do it, you could substantially increase the amount of channels that you could process?
Virgil N5IVV
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Stephensen Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:31 PM To: Clint Bradford; [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
If we want the most "bang for the buck", it would be something that supports the most QSOs per watt of solar power. Since most hams have computers, something that supports half a dozen PSK31 sessions would suffice. Given the new open-source voice codec you could also make something that supports multiple digital voice QSOs with less power than now required for analog FM or SSB.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Clint Bradford" [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 00:27 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
... launch opportunities are so rare that we ought to
fly the most capable equipment we can on those rare occasions when we can get a launch ...
Perhaps we should define, "most capable equipment." And we also need to define "bang for the buck."
Sent via [email protected]. 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
Please watch this short video it give a path to HEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpGnxlZC8Hs
Thanks nick ARS K5QXJ EM30xa 30.1N 92.1W Office 337 593 8700 Cell 337 258 2527 Helping UL become a world Class Engineering and Educational School
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Clint Bradford Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 7:28 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
... launch opportunities are so rare that we ought to
fly the most capable equipment we can on those rare occasions when we can get a launch ...
Perhaps we should define, "most capable equipment." And we also need to define "bang for the buck."
What should a ham satellite program offer to the amateur community? If bringing new hams into this aspect of the hobby is important, then we need another AO-51 - which was probably the greatest marketing tool ever seen in the amateur satellite community. Its ease of use was the cause of scores of media alerts and publicity for amateur radio. And most importantly, it got more people looking skyward and thinking they could work amateur satellites than any other project.
Then there was the marvelous marketing surrounding ARISSat-1 ...
What else should an amateur satellite program offer? Many here want satellites that are only accessible with an investment of many hundreds of dollars' worth of antenna systems and equipment. (Some would actually love it if Technicians weren't allowed - that's how extreme thinking is on this topic.) Is THAT what will move the hobby forward for the masses?
IS there a "middle ground?" Sure is a polarized topic (pun intended). Some want the hobby and sat use to grow ... others want to exclude as many fellow hams as possible.
Clint Bradford K6LCS http://www.work-sat.com
---------------------------------- Clint Bradford, K6LCS http://www.clintbradford.com _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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
participants (4)
-
Clint Bradford -
John Stephensen -
Nick Pugh K5QXJ -
Virgil Bierschwale