Disappointed to find out that there will not be an S band downlink on Eagle
Will there be an S band downlink on the P3E bird???
Sure hate having to fork over more money each time a new satellite goes up because previous up/downlinks are not being used anymore....makes me wish for more mode A LEO birds (grin)
73, Joe W2KJ
I was sorry to hear that too (the same week I bought a Cal. Amp. 2.4GHz downconverter). It might be a noisy band but how much can it cost to put the kit on the bird anyway? Even if it is not in regular scheduled use, at least it will be there when (or rather if) another downlink fails.
73 de
Félim M3HIM IO91ot Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, UK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Trombino Jr" w2kj@bellsouth.net To: "AMSAT" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 10:49 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] S band downlink on P3E
Disappointed to find out that there will not be an S band downlink on
Eagle
Will there be an S band downlink on the P3E bird???
Sure hate having to fork over more money each time a new satellite goes up because previous up/downlinks are not being used anymore....makes me wish for more mode A LEO birds (grin)
73, Joe W2KJ
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
While AO-40 was still alive and I was working it from deep within "Silicon Valley", an area blanketed by WiFi, 2.4GHz cordless phones, etc., I discovered that a parabolic dish with a properly positioned and designed patch feed (slightly under-illuminating the dish and having no significant side-lobes) would bring in AO-40's S-band downlink very nicely and cleanly.
Of course, other feed or antenna types such as helical antennas/feeds were useless in that environment.
I have to admit that I don't buy the "too noisy" argument.
73,
Rick KG6IAL
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Félim Doyle M3HIM Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 12:21 AM To: Joseph Trombino Jr; AMSAT Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band downlink on P3E
I was sorry to hear that too (the same week I bought a Cal. Amp. 2.4GHz downconverter). It might be a noisy band but how much can it cost to put the kit on the bird anyway? Even if it is not in regular scheduled use, at least it will be there when (or rather if) another downlink fails.
73 de
Félim M3HIM IO91ot Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, UK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Trombino Jr" w2kj@bellsouth.net To: "AMSAT" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 10:49 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] S band downlink on P3E
Disappointed to find out that there will not be an S band downlink on
Eagle
Will there be an S band downlink on the P3E bird???
Sure hate having to fork over more money each time a new satellite goes up because previous up/downlinks are not being used anymore....makes me wish for more mode A LEO birds (grin)
73, Joe W2KJ
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Rick,
I am in _TOTAL_ agreement. I live in the suburbs of Tampa/St. Pete and never had an interference problem on my 3 foot dish. I have used the same dish to log well over a dozen WiFi access points in that immediate neighborhood. With properly designed equipment, all that trash on 2.4 ghz goes away with some elevation. What won't work is helixes with multiple sidelobes, and surplus dishes that let one whole polarity of noise right thru the back.
Everyone knows I'm a big supporter of AMSAT, but I gotta call it as I see it. It makes me think of "bait and switch" to collect money for a project featuring such a popular mode and then drop it.
The loss of Mode B on AO-40 caused a lot of the hardcore AO-10/AO-13 types to walk away, and that was tough to overcome. Now that we have, and we have people wanting S band, we leave them behind too. Even if it's a sound engineering decision (and that hasn't been proven to me) it's a horrid marketing decision. Bad mojo for a organization that lives on the donations of it's members.
Sorry if this causes any pain to those involved with Eagle, but I needed to get it off my chest.
73, Drew KO4MA AMSAT LM 2332
While AO-40 was still alive and I was working it from deep within "Silicon Valley", an area blanketed by WiFi, 2.4GHz cordless phones, etc., I discovered that a parabolic dish with a properly positioned and designed patch feed (slightly under-illuminating the dish and having no significant side-lobes) would bring in AO-40's S-band downlink very nicely and cleanly.
Of course, other feed or antenna types such as helical antennas/feeds were useless in that environment.
I have to admit that I don't buy the "too noisy" argument.
73,
Rick KG6IAL
I totally agree with you.
Les W4SCO
At 02:38 PM 9/7/2006, you wrote:
Rick,
I am in _TOTAL_ agreement. I live in the suburbs of Tampa/St. Pete and never had an interference problem on my 3 foot dish. I have used the same dish to log well over a dozen WiFi access points in that immediate neighborhood. With properly designed equipment, all that trash on 2.4 ghz goes away with some elevation. What won't work is helixes with multiple sidelobes, and surplus dishes that let one whole polarity of noise right thru the back.
Everyone knows I'm a big supporter of AMSAT, but I gotta call it as I see it. It makes me think of "bait and switch" to collect money for a project featuring such a popular mode and then drop it.
The loss of Mode B on AO-40 caused a lot of the hardcore AO-10/AO-13 types to walk away, and that was tough to overcome. Now that we have, and we have people wanting S band, we leave them behind too. Even if it's a sound engineering decision (and that hasn't been proven to me) it's a horrid marketing decision. Bad mojo for a organization that lives on the donations of it's members.
Sorry if this causes any pain to those involved with Eagle, but I needed to get it off my chest.
73, Drew KO4MA AMSAT LM 2332
While AO-40 was still alive and I was working it from deep within "Silicon Valley", an area blanketed by WiFi, 2.4GHz cordless phones, etc., I discovered that a parabolic dish with a properly positioned and designed patch feed (slightly under-illuminating the dish and having no significant side-lobes) would bring in AO-40's S-band downlink very nicely and cleanly.
Of course, other feed or antenna types such as helical antennas/feeds were useless in that environment.
I have to admit that I don't buy the "too noisy" argument.
73,
Rick KG6IAL
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
I too totally agree. I see no reason why we can not vote on the designers decision with our support dollars. Personally, I am giving all mine to P3E.
The fact that they are "designing the ground equipment too" is of no comfort to me. My S band gear is on the tower and operating.
If AMSAT thinks this is such a great decision then let them find the money to support it without the majority of us.
Dean Shutt AL7CR
sco@sco-inc.com wrote:
I totally agree with you.
Les W4SCO
At 02:38 PM 9/7/2006, you wrote:
Rick,
I am in _TOTAL_ agreement. I live in the suburbs of Tampa/St. Pete and never had an interference problem on my 3 foot dish. I have used the same dish to log well over a dozen WiFi access points in that immediate neighborhood. With properly designed equipment, all that trash on 2.4 ghz goes away with some elevation. What won't work is helixes with multiple sidelobes, and surplus dishes that let one whole polarity of noise right thru the back.
Everyone knows I'm a big supporter of AMSAT, but I gotta call it as I see it. It makes me think of "bait and switch" to collect money for a project featuring such a popular mode and then drop it.
The loss of Mode B on AO-40 caused a lot of the hardcore AO-10/AO-13 types to walk away, and that was tough to overcome. Now that we have, and we have people wanting S band, we leave them behind too. Even if it's a sound engineering decision (and that hasn't been proven to me) it's a horrid marketing decision. Bad mojo for a organization that lives on the donations of it's members.
Sorry if this causes any pain to those involved with Eagle, but I needed to get it off my chest.
73, Drew KO4MA AMSAT LM 2332
While AO-40 was still alive and I was working it from deep within "Silicon Valley", an area blanketed by WiFi, 2.4GHz cordless phones, etc., I discovered that a parabolic dish with a properly positioned and designed patch feed (slightly under-illuminating the dish and having no significant side-lobes) would bring in AO-40's S-band downlink very nicely and cleanly.
Of course, other feed or antenna types such as helical antennas/feeds were useless in that environment.
I have to admit that I don't buy the "too noisy" argument.
73,
Rick KG6IAL
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
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
Who is designing the ground equipment? It sounds like someone has a get-rich-quick scheme up their sleeve...
73s, Eric KF4OTN kf4otn@amsat.org http://www.ericsatcom.net
Quoting AL7CR al7cr@punakea.com:
I too totally agree. I see no reason why we can not vote on the designers decision with our support dollars. Personally, I am giving all mine to P3E.
The fact that they are "designing the ground equipment too" is of no comfort to me. My S band gear is on the tower and operating.
If AMSAT thinks this is such a great decision then let them find the money to support it without the majority of us.
Dean Shutt AL7CR
sco@sco-inc.com wrote:
I totally agree with you.
Les W4SCO
At 02:38 PM 9/7/2006, you wrote:
Rick,
I am in _TOTAL_ agreement. I live in the suburbs of Tampa/St. Pete and never had an interference problem on my 3 foot dish. I have used the same dish to log well over a dozen WiFi access points in that immediate neighborhood. With properly designed equipment, all that trash on 2.4 ghz goes away with some elevation. What won't work is helixes with multiple sidelobes, and surplus dishes that let one whole polarity of noise right thru the back.
Everyone knows I'm a big supporter of AMSAT, but I gotta call it as I see it. It makes me think of "bait and switch" to collect money for a project featuring such a popular mode and then drop it.
The loss of Mode B on AO-40 caused a lot of the hardcore AO-10/AO-13 types to walk away, and that was tough to overcome. Now that we have, and we have people wanting S band, we leave them behind too. Even if it's a sound engineering decision (and that hasn't been proven to me) it's a horrid marketing decision. Bad mojo for a organization that lives on the donations of it's members.
Sorry if this causes any pain to those involved with Eagle, but I needed to get it off my chest.
73, Drew KO4MA AMSAT LM 2332
While AO-40 was still alive and I was working it from deep within "Silicon Valley", an area blanketed by WiFi, 2.4GHz cordless phones, etc., I discovered that a parabolic dish with a properly positioned and designed patch feed (slightly under-illuminating the dish and having no significant side-lobes) would bring in AO-40's S-band downlink very nicely and cleanly.
Of course, other feed or antenna types such as helical antennas/feeds were useless in that environment.
I have to admit that I don't buy the "too noisy" argument.
73,
Rick KG6IAL
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
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
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
Eric:
AMSAT is designing these ground station widgets to be sold in our store at or near cost or similarly in the TAPR store, etc. or from some contract manufacturer. We fully understand that to be accepted it needs to be as cheap as possible. We are designing the ground widgets because they will need to have very small implementation losses to work right and the system needs to work as a system from feed to computer. But you are an SSB user so you can ignore the digital widget and operate Mode B.
As a person who has been a ham radio operator for over 40 years, and an AMSAT technical contributor since 27 years ago, people do not get rich quick on amateur radio. They can make a few bucks, but they will kill themselves trying to do a really breakout product. I <<DID>> design a killer product for AEA. I lost my shirt. If you want to make money on what you have learned in amateur radio, you sell it outside of amateur radio. Amateurs, outside of buying the big rig, are the absolutely cheapest bums in existence. They would make my Scotch ancestors look like spendthrifts.
Bob N4HY
Eric H. Christensen wrote:
Who is designing the ground equipment? It sounds like someone has a get-rich-quick scheme up their sleeve...
73s, Eric KF4OTN kf4otn@amsat.org http://www.ericsatcom.net
Not likely; I have absolute faith that the design team doesn't work that way.
But, I am curious what is being proposed. Is there a link to the current thinking on what this equipment will consist of? I didn't see anything on EaglePedia, but there are a lot of nooks and cranies in there and I might have missed it...
Greg KO6TH
----Original Message Follows---- From: "Eric H. Christensen" kf4otn@ericsatcom.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band downlink on P3E Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:41:14 -0400
Who is designing the ground equipment? It sounds like someone has a get-rich-quick scheme up their sleeve...
73s, Eric KF4OTN kf4otn@amsat.org http://www.ericsatcom.net
Quoting AL7CR al7cr@punakea.com:
I too totally agree. I see no reason why we can not vote on the designers decision with our support dollars. Personally, I am giving all mine to P3E.
The fact that they are "designing the ground equipment too" is of no comfort to me. My S band gear is on the tower and operating.
If AMSAT thinks this is such a great decision then let them find the money to support it without the majority of us.
Dean Shutt AL7CR
sco@sco-inc.com wrote:
I totally agree with you.
Les W4SCO
At 02:38 PM 9/7/2006, you wrote:
Rick,
I am in _TOTAL_ agreement. I live in the suburbs of Tampa/St. Pete and never had an interference problem on my 3 foot dish. I have used the same
dish to
log well over a dozen WiFi access points in that immediate
neighborhood.
With properly designed equipment, all that trash on 2.4 ghz goes away
with
some elevation. What won't work is helixes with multiple sidelobes, and surplus dishes that let one whole polarity of noise right thru the
back.
Everyone knows I'm a big supporter of AMSAT, but I gotta call it as I
see
it. It makes me think of "bait and switch" to collect money for a
project
featuring such a popular mode and then drop it.
The loss of Mode B on AO-40 caused a lot of the hardcore AO-10/AO-13
types
to walk away, and that was tough to overcome. Now that we have, and we
have
people wanting S band, we leave them behind too. Even if it's a sound engineering decision (and that hasn't been proven to me) it's a horrid marketing decision. Bad mojo for a organization that lives on the
donations
of it's members.
Sorry if this causes any pain to those involved with Eagle, but I
needed to
get it off my chest.
73, Drew KO4MA AMSAT LM 2332
While AO-40 was still alive and I was working it from deep within
"Silicon
Valley", an area blanketed by WiFi, 2.4GHz cordless phones, etc., I discovered that a parabolic dish with a properly positioned and
designed
patch feed (slightly under-illuminating the dish and having no
significant
side-lobes) would bring in AO-40's S-band downlink very nicely and cleanly.
Of course, other feed or antenna types such as helical antennas/feeds
were
useless in that environment.
I have to admit that I don't buy the "too noisy" argument.
73,
Rick KG6IAL
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
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
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
_______________________________________________ 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
AL7CR expunged (al7cr@punakea.com):
The fact that they are "designing the ground equipment too" is of no comfort to me. My S band gear is on the tower and operating.
I think they were talking specifically about equipment for CC Rider, correct me if I'm wrong. Even then, I don't ever think it would have been a requirement to use their gear, they would just be providing something that might not have been available anywhere else.
-Steve N1JFU
All of the designs for the equipment to use the digital transponder on S/C bands will be open and available (hardware and software). For the "CC Rider", now S/C, we will be required to produce working units but it will be openly available for experimenters and homebrewers to roll their own. We are going to have to figure out to enforce power discipline because of the resource limitations.
The Mode B transponder will require no more than AO-13 required unless you want to use the new text messaging service and that will require a sound card and a computer.
Bob N4HY
Steve Meuse wrote:
AL7CR expunged (al7cr@punakea.com):
The fact that they are "designing the ground equipment too" is of no comfort to me. My S band gear is on the tower and operating.
I think they were talking specifically about equipment for CC Rider, correct me if I'm wrong. Even then, I don't ever think it would have been a requirement to use their gear, they would just be providing something that might not have been available anywhere else.
-Steve N1JFU
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
Drew,
Congratulations for speaking your mind on this touchy subject and that can't be easy being involved within the AMSAT circles as you are.
I'll be watching Eaglepedia for the evidence from the Eagle design team that convinces me (and many of us) that 2.4 GHz has to go.
I have more interference problems on 70 CM with 433.9 stuff not to mention I look down on the back side of a PAVE PAWS radar (I'm in the Sierra foothills looking down into the Sacramento Valley). While I receive random, periodic clicks and clacks, it hasn't prevented me from working AO-51 most of the time using just a ground plane on 70 CM. (I hate to track and really don't need to!!). Compared to 70CM, the 2.401 GHz region here is "down right quiet" when using a decent direction antenna.
If it's OK for P3E it should be on Eagle. Convince me that Eagle science is better and wiser than P3E science.
Thanks for speaking up Drew....73s...Bill - N6GHz
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org]On Behalf Of Andrew Glasbrenner Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 11:39 AM To: Rick Fletcher; 'AMSAT' Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band downlink on P3E
Rick,
I am in _TOTAL_ agreement. I live in the suburbs of Tampa/St. Pete and never had an interference problem on my 3 foot dish. I have used the same dish to log well over a dozen WiFi access points in that immediate neighborhood. With properly designed equipment, all that trash on 2.4 ghz goes away with some elevation. What won't work is helixes with multiple sidelobes, and surplus dishes that let one whole polarity of noise right thru the back.
Everyone knows I'm a big supporter of AMSAT, but I gotta call it as I see it. It makes me think of "bait and switch" to collect money for a project featuring such a popular mode and then drop it.
The loss of Mode B on AO-40 caused a lot of the hardcore AO-10/AO-13 types to walk away, and that was tough to overcome. Now that we have, and we have people wanting S band, we leave them behind too. Even if it's a sound engineering decision (and that hasn't been proven to me) it's a horrid marketing decision. Bad mojo for a organization that lives on the donations of it's members.
Sorry if this causes any pain to those involved with Eagle, but I needed to get it off my chest.
73, Drew KO4MA AMSAT LM 2332
While AO-40 was still alive and I was working it from deep within "Silicon Valley", an area blanketed by WiFi, 2.4GHz cordless phones, etc., I discovered that a parabolic dish with a properly positioned and designed patch feed (slightly under-illuminating the dish and having no significant side-lobes) would bring in AO-40's S-band downlink very nicely and cleanly.
Of course, other feed or antenna types such as helical antennas/feeds were useless in that environment.
I have to admit that I don't buy the "too noisy" argument.
73,
Rick KG6IAL
_______________________________________________ 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
Andrew Glasbrenner expunged (glasbrenner@mindspring.com):
Everyone knows I'm a big supporter of AMSAT, but I gotta call it as I see it. It makes me think of "bait and switch" to collect money for a project featuring such a popular mode and then drop it.
I'm somewhat glad that AO40 ended up with it's only downlink on S band. It forced me to educate myself on microwaves. Thanks to that unfortunate accident, I'm now active on all bands up to 10Ghz.
When I saw the latest band layout I was dissapointed.
I know the builders have a constant struggle between building something that is usable vs. something that advances the state of the art. I just think that the majority of people realized that S band was easy, therefore very usable. CC Rider was a huge step forward for us, even if it wasn't eventually doable. Going back to V/U modes seems to me taking a step backward to me.
I don't want to seem negative, I really appreciate every ounce of work the builders put in, I just think maybe they need to take a little more input from the active community before the set things in motion.
-Steve N1JFU
Didn't they just "survey" the membership one year ago? If the surveys aren't going to be on topic or considered in the final decision as to band preference, why not save the money for more worthwhile ventures?
Roger WA1KAT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Meuse" smeuse@mara.org To: "Andrew Glasbrenner" glasbrenner@mindspring.com Cc: "'AMSAT'" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 4:19 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band downlink on P3E
Andrew Glasbrenner expunged (glasbrenner@mindspring.com):
Everyone knows I'm a big supporter of AMSAT, but I gotta call it as I
see
it. It makes me think of "bait and switch" to collect money for a
project
featuring such a popular mode and then drop it.
I'm somewhat glad that AO40 ended up with it's only downlink on S band. It
forced me to educate myself on microwaves. Thanks to that unfortunate accident, I'm now active on all bands up to 10Ghz.
When I saw the latest band layout I was dissapointed.
I know the builders have a constant struggle between building something
that is usable vs. something that advances the state of the art. I just think that the majority of people realized that S band was easy, therefore very usable. CC Rider was a huge step forward for us, even if it wasn't eventually doable. Going back to V/U modes seems to me taking a step backward to me.
I don't want to seem negative, I really appreciate every ounce of work the
builders put in, I just think maybe they need to take a little more input from the active community before the set things in motion.
-Steve N1JFU
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
Didn't they just "survey" the membership one year ago? If the surveys aren't going to be on topic or considered in the final decision as to band preference, why not save the money for more worthwhile ventures?
Roger WA1KAT
AMEN, Roger!
And to the dozens that have already answered you, and the hundreds that will.....
If this sounds like an "I TOLD YOU SO", it just may be, if the shoe fits wear it...
When ECHO was first proposed many years ago I opposed it violently, and was promptly ostracized by many of the AMSAT-NA leaders at that time....So be it, my shoulders are broad...The proponents of ECHO maintained an easy-sat, with minimal investment, and I was vociferous in my opposition that they were KILLING interest in ham radio satellites in the US, and perhaps elsewhere.
I am not a rocket scientist or an engineer, but have operated every mode I could afford since I was licensed in 1952, and I based my decisions on the fact that I KNOW ham radio operators...98% of them WANT a challenge to pursue, and that they were appealing to about 2% of them.
I got interested in OPERATING amateur satellites. I had listened to Oscar 1, when I was still on active duty as Navy pilot...with no chance to set up transmit capability...
My first contact on Oscar 7 in 1980 required a total investment of about $90. I pulled the finals on a SWAN 500, to use as an exciter for a homebrew converter...an HQ180 for the 10M downlink, homebrew antennas in both directions. It wasn't fancy, but it worked, and I've managed to work every satellite in every mode that has ever been launched since......
I predicted the end of AMSAT-NA, at that time, and now it looks as tho it is coming true, UNFORTUNATELY...many of us "old goats" like myself have long since deserted.
Appeal to the "2 meter mentality" as I call it, and that is what we are winding up with....
I got on "S" band just like the hundreds of other out there, could still be done.
If we quit promoting the stupid space station contacts as having anything to do with ham radio... that is a bill of goods, also...ESA supports satellite amateur radio....some in this organization are promoting NASA, I assume to feather their own nest.
At the ultimate expense of amateur satellite radio all over the world...
Get off the dime feather merchants...
73, Dave wb6llo@amsat.org Disagree: I learn....
Pulling for P3E...
Dave Guimont wrote:
73, Dave wb6llo@amsat.org Disagree: I learn.... Pulling for P3E...
As are many of us. That said, The S transmitter is not the primary mode of P3E. The S band transmitter on P3E will be hooked to a dish. This dish will have a half power beam width which will limit the usefulness of the S band transmitter to those times of nadir pointing.
The revelation of the results of our meeting, weeks before we could be ready to explain carefully that we are taking a system approach to the design of Eagle, is unfortunate. Not because the conclusions are made public but because there is no context for the decision making process.
We cannot build an AO-40 class spacecraft. We do not have the personnel, the facilities, and we likely do not have sufficient talent that we can devote to such an enterprise. We have talent in this organization and around the world. But all of that talent leads a life outside of AMSAT. As an engineering manager for AMSAT it is my responsibility to make cold hard decisions based on personnel, calculation, advice, studies, equipment availability, the availability of launches that we can use and on and on.
The organization overreacted to AO-40. It downsized Eagle considerably. It set a goal of no motor. It said "let's do digital" and "give them a whip antenna on two meters". It did not say this in a crass manner but those were absolutely the conclusions of the organization policies when captured into engineering possibilities. It has literally taken me 11 months to ALMOST right the ship. If the other people in the room will admit to it, I single handedly saved the linear transponders in our current designs by
a) picking the receiver designer b) picking the transmitter designer c) choosing SDX as the overall concept for the linear transponder
EVERYONE is on board. But do you think such things are done overnight? NO. They are done with leadership and not by whining. These decisions and their outcome led to a MUCH improved antenna system, power amplifier, and absolutely cutting edge efficiencies achievable for this transponder in our current plans. It went from 25 kHz fed to a quarter wave monopole on the back side of the spacecraft to serious antenna absolute eating valuable territory on the business side of the spacecraft and with bandwidth UP TO (but not necessarily) 100 kHz wide. The bandwidth will be determined by the TYPE of customers we wish to serve. We do not want to serve only those who can transmit 10 kW EIRP. We do want to support 1 KW EIRP SSB contacts. We also want to support a text messaging service that will require a shortened dipole on 70cm and 2m which will not be limited to APRS users.
The goals stated by the AMSAT board of directors for its next HEO spacecraft design as a follow on to P3E (besides supporting P3E in the interim) included aiding those people who live in CC&R (covenant restricted) communities. It included aiding the first responders by giving them the ability to take a back pack full of equipment, set it up, and operate quickly. It stated that it wanted to produce a system of such satellites over a decade to be available 7/24.
We have a concept, not a design, for a spacecraft. This concept is an "upsizing" of the near cubical Eagle. We are filling in the blanks on the concept in an attempt to present a design.
The concepts we are building to include the ability to use the transponders on this spacecraft 365 days a year, in EVERY year the spacecraft is functional and to try and build a spacecraft that will be there and still usable when the third in the constellation is launched. Do you think this is easy? Of course not. It is easy to pitch mud when you are not responsible for an outcome.
We are attempting to have NO bad seasons. We are attempting to have NO funny orbital problems. We are attempting to have the gain antennas solidly usable over 70% of the entire orbit. For these reasons and because of the desire to serve the CC&R customers, this meant we had to use microwaves to get sufficient gain on the antennas on the spacecraft and the ground. We fully understand that Dick Jansson, Drew, Dave, Tony, and others can give us anecdotes of how they can throw enough gain on their antenna system and make S band work for them. I believe they will not be happy with a 60 cm dish but will require a much larger dish to be happy and I am certain they would do it. I do not care. They are not who I am computing for. These are not the customers I am trying to serve. The customers I want to serve for the future of AMSAT cannot be served by a scratchy SSB signal and a (now) 4 foot dish. I have a mission directive from the board of directors you elected and voted for to serve these NEW customers. Those who will be here when the third satellite is launched. They will not be where Dave will be by then. I apologize for the crassness of this remark, but I am trying to make a point. I know Dave and have for nearly 30 years.. We are building for a guessed audience, with a guessed legal and RF environment, with a guessed ability to deliver 3 such payloads over the next 13 years.
COLD HARD CALCULATION went into this analysis based on our best guesses and analyses. Given what we believe the environment will be We can only do this on microwaves and we can only do it digitally. PERIOD. End of story. God (as demonstrated through the mathematics of Claude Shannon) has dictated this outcome. We did not sit in a back room and decide what new toys we would throw your way to delight ourselves and to screw you (no more smoke and no more drink in there, we have grown old and boring) . To do it, I have to build a very complex antenna system that will take up most of the available area on the spacecraft for antennas. I cannot build a three axis stabilized spacecraft (I do not have the team or the money to do it), so I must do it with phased arrays. Matt Ettus has given us a great head start on this design and Tom Clark and John Stephensen have done great work on the antennas so far. We will test these antenna designs in the next twelve months thanks to a very generous antenna test range offer and design help by one of our members.
The direction Jim and I gave our engineering team was that we cannot rely on this to work perfectly and meet every operational goal perfectly. STUFF HAPPENS. We are attempting to be ambitious but we absolutely must have a credible back up in case this system does not meet our expectations. We now have the upgraded Mode B transponder design which I believe will be the sweetest one flown since Oscar 7's Mode B. Fully equipped with the channelized AGC (Leila or Stella), generating HELAPS with modern technology and new fantastic amplifier components.
I gave the argument to our engineering team that I have witnessed one experimental, new widget after another get built, flown, and then have its designers disheartened and dejected because it got "RUDAK'ed". It never really gets used or fully developed. It drifts into an inert lump that people mumble about when they are asked of their involvement. I insisted on enough spacecraft power generation to run BOTH the linear transponder and the digital transponder simultaneously and 365 days a year, EVERY year. This is the single most expensive decision we have made. We might spend 1/2 to 3/4 MILLION dollars on solar panels to accomplish this. I have insisted we have enough antenna space to make all of the antennas credible and based on calculation of the required antenna gains to close the links. Again, Claude Shannon has interpreted the natural laws and dictated the outcome. Cold hard calculation has gone into the needed solar generators, and the size of spacecraft required to support this.
It will be about 4 feet across and look initially like a scaled DOWN AO-40 at launch if the concept becomes our design.
We cannot deliver the quality of services we are demanding of ourselves if we fly all of the bands to be flown on P3E. We do not have the power or the antenna territory to meet our goals for these services.
I have taken my direction from the board of directors of this organization. They made the vision statement. They can change it. You elected them.
Several things will happen in October. We will install four directors. I may, or may not, be one of them. The board will vote whether or not to retain me as the VP Engineering. I have made almost NO ONE happy by slowing down those who drive me crazy with wanting to rush head long in a ready fire aim approach by demanding that we calculate our way to the vision statement to show the directors the consequences of the decision making processes. I have to tell you, I am damn proud of how much has been done in eleven months. Stuff got put on hold that aggravated many. We all make decisions about the way things have to go but I have done my best to aim us in a technically feasible direction. I do not have time to do all the everyone wants me to do. I will continue to do my best if I stay in the job.
I offer the following. If the board votes to change their vision statement and not to build the spacecraft we are proposing, I will tender my resignation as VP Engineering since I will have failed to do the job they elected me to do which was to produce a usable concept to meet their vision. I am not interested in flying a carbon copy of P3E when I know it makes no sense whatsoever. I am 52 years old and one of the most active technical contributors in all of amateur radio. I will not waste my time doing what I know in my heart and my head is not in the best interests of amateur radio even if it is currently perceived to be for the good of the shrinking aging membership of AMSAT. It would be irresponsible of me not to attempt to aid the organization in addressing a new group of members while attempting to thread the needle of serving our current members. If elected to the board, and it changes direction, I will offer my seat to the first alternate. Vote for someone else if you do not want P3E built and you do not want the AMSAT vision statement attempted if you have not cast your vote.
The story you have just been told should not have come out in this form. It was NEVER meant to be displayed in this form. The calculations were made at the first of July. They have undergone several iterations and were not really put in there latest form until August. In an attempt to get further interest from the microwave community, we made a decision to give a sneak peek to get some technical aid from RF specialists. This has backfired badly because we, the volunteers who have sacrificed countless hours on your behalf, have not had the time to put together a hundred pages of supporting documentation to tell the story in a coherent fashion so not only do we look like idiots, we have had to do things like waste 3.5 hours writing this silly note when I should have been asleep.
Lastly. I have been accused here of being a con artist. I resent it. I don't need to con anyone. Frankly, I don't have to be here at all. I choose to be.
Bob N4HY
and a big hi, hi....Thanks Bob for telling it like it is.
On 9/8/06, Robert McGwier rwmcgwier@comcast.net wrote:
Dave Guimont wrote:
73, Dave wb6llo@amsat.org Disagree: I learn.... Pulling for P3E...As are many of us. That said, The S transmitter is not the primary mode of P3E. The S band transmitter on P3E will be hooked to a dish. This dish will have a half power beam width which will limit the usefulness of the S band transmitter to those times of nadir pointing.
The revelation of the results of our meeting, weeks before we could be ready to explain carefully that we are taking a system approach to the design of Eagle, is unfortunate. Not because the conclusions are made public but because there is no context for the decision making process.
We cannot build an AO-40 class spacecraft. We do not have the personnel, the facilities, and we likely do not have sufficient talent that we can devote to such an enterprise. We have talent in this organization and around the world. But all of that talent leads a life outside of AMSAT. As an engineering manager for AMSAT it is my responsibility to make cold hard decisions based on personnel, calculation, advice, studies, equipment availability, the availability of launches that we can use and on and on.
The organization overreacted to AO-40. It downsized Eagle considerably. It set a goal of no motor. It said "let's do digital" and "give them a whip antenna on two meters". It did not say this in a crass manner but those were absolutely the conclusions of the organization policies when captured into engineering possibilities. It has literally taken me 11 months to ALMOST right the ship. If the other people in the room will admit to it, I single handedly saved the linear transponders in our current designs by
a) picking the receiver designer b) picking the transmitter designer c) choosing SDX as the overall concept for the linear transponder
EVERYONE is on board. But do you think such things are done overnight? NO. They are done with leadership and not by whining. These decisions and their outcome led to a MUCH improved antenna system, power amplifier, and absolutely cutting edge efficiencies achievable for this transponder in our current plans. It went from 25 kHz fed to a quarter wave monopole on the back side of the spacecraft to serious antenna absolute eating valuable territory on the business side of the spacecraft and with bandwidth UP TO (but not necessarily) 100 kHz wide. The bandwidth will be determined by the TYPE of customers we wish to serve. We do not want to serve only those who can transmit 10 kW EIRP. We do want to support 1 KW EIRP SSB contacts. We also want to support a text messaging service that will require a shortened dipole on 70cm and 2m which will not be limited to APRS users.
The goals stated by the AMSAT board of directors for its next HEO spacecraft design as a follow on to P3E (besides supporting P3E in the interim) included aiding those people who live in CC&R (covenant restricted) communities. It included aiding the first responders by giving them the ability to take a back pack full of equipment, set it up, and operate quickly. It stated that it wanted to produce a system of such satellites over a decade to be available 7/24.
We have a concept, not a design, for a spacecraft. This concept is an "upsizing" of the near cubical Eagle. We are filling in the blanks on the concept in an attempt to present a design.
The concepts we are building to include the ability to use the transponders on this spacecraft 365 days a year, in EVERY year the spacecraft is functional and to try and build a spacecraft that will be there and still usable when the third in the constellation is launched. Do you think this is easy? Of course not. It is easy to pitch mud when you are not responsible for an outcome.
We are attempting to have NO bad seasons. We are attempting to have NO funny orbital problems. We are attempting to have the gain antennas solidly usable over 70% of the entire orbit. For these reasons and because of the desire to serve the CC&R customers, this meant we had to use microwaves to get sufficient gain on the antennas on the spacecraft and the ground. We fully understand that Dick Jansson, Drew, Dave, Tony, and others can give us anecdotes of how they can throw enough gain on their antenna system and make S band work for them. I believe they will not be happy with a 60 cm dish but will require a much larger dish to be happy and I am certain they would do it. I do not care. They are not who I am computing for. These are not the customers I am trying to serve. The customers I want to serve for the future of AMSAT cannot be served by a scratchy SSB signal and a (now) 4 foot dish. I have a mission directive from the board of directors you elected and voted for to serve these NEW customers. Those who will be here when the third satellite is launched. They will not be where Dave will be by then. I apologize for the crassness of this remark, but I am trying to make a point. I know Dave and have for nearly 30 years.. We are building for a guessed audience, with a guessed legal and RF environment, with a guessed ability to deliver 3 such payloads over the next 13 years.
COLD HARD CALCULATION went into this analysis based on our best guesses and analyses. Given what we believe the environment will be We can only do this on microwaves and we can only do it digitally. PERIOD. End of story. God (as demonstrated through the mathematics of Claude Shannon) has dictated this outcome. We did not sit in a back room and decide what new toys we would throw your way to delight ourselves and to screw you (no more smoke and no more drink in there, we have grown old and boring) . To do it, I have to build a very complex antenna system that will take up most of the available area on the spacecraft for antennas. I cannot build a three axis stabilized spacecraft (I do not have the team or the money to do it), so I must do it with phased arrays. Matt Ettus has given us a great head start on this design and Tom Clark and John Stephensen have done great work on the antennas so far. We will test these antenna designs in the next twelve months thanks to a very generous antenna test range offer and design help by one of our members.
The direction Jim and I gave our engineering team was that we cannot rely on this to work perfectly and meet every operational goal perfectly. STUFF HAPPENS. We are attempting to be ambitious but we absolutely must have a credible back up in case this system does not meet our expectations. We now have the upgraded Mode B transponder design which I believe will be the sweetest one flown since Oscar 7's Mode B. Fully equipped with the channelized AGC (Leila or Stella), generating HELAPS with modern technology and new fantastic amplifier components.
I gave the argument to our engineering team that I have witnessed one experimental, new widget after another get built, flown, and then have its designers disheartened and dejected because it got "RUDAK'ed". It never really gets used or fully developed. It drifts into an inert lump that people mumble about when they are asked of their involvement. I insisted on enough spacecraft power generation to run BOTH the linear transponder and the digital transponder simultaneously and 365 days a year, EVERY year. This is the single most expensive decision we have made. We might spend 1/2 to 3/4 MILLION dollars on solar panels to accomplish this. I have insisted we have enough antenna space to make all of the antennas credible and based on calculation of the required antenna gains to close the links. Again, Claude Shannon has interpreted the natural laws and dictated the outcome. Cold hard calculation has gone into the needed solar generators, and the size of spacecraft required to support this.
It will be about 4 feet across and look initially like a scaled DOWN AO-40 at launch if the concept becomes our design.
We cannot deliver the quality of services we are demanding of ourselves if we fly all of the bands to be flown on P3E. We do not have the power or the antenna territory to meet our goals for these services.
I have taken my direction from the board of directors of this organization. They made the vision statement. They can change it. You elected them.
Several things will happen in October. We will install four directors. I may, or may not, be one of them. The board will vote whether or not to retain me as the VP Engineering. I have made almost NO ONE happy by slowing down those who drive me crazy with wanting to rush head long in a ready fire aim approach by demanding that we calculate our way to the vision statement to show the directors the consequences of the decision making processes. I have to tell you, I am damn proud of how much has been done in eleven months. Stuff got put on hold that aggravated many. We all make decisions about the way things have to go but I have done my best to aim us in a technically feasible direction. I do not have time to do all the everyone wants me to do. I will continue to do my best if I stay in the job.
I offer the following. If the board votes to change their vision statement and not to build the spacecraft we are proposing, I will tender my resignation as VP Engineering since I will have failed to do the job they elected me to do which was to produce a usable concept to meet their vision. I am not interested in flying a carbon copy of P3E when I know it makes no sense whatsoever. I am 52 years old and one of the most active technical contributors in all of amateur radio. I will not waste my time doing what I know in my heart and my head is not in the best interests of amateur radio even if it is currently perceived to be for the good of the shrinking aging membership of AMSAT. It would be irresponsible of me not to attempt to aid the organization in addressing a new group of members while attempting to thread the needle of serving our current members. If elected to the board, and it changes direction, I will offer my seat to the first alternate. Vote for someone else if you do not want P3E built and you do not want the AMSAT vision statement attempted if you have not cast your vote.
The story you have just been told should not have come out in this form. It was NEVER meant to be displayed in this form. The calculations were made at the first of July. They have undergone several iterations and were not really put in there latest form until August. In an attempt to get further interest from the microwave community, we made a decision to give a sneak peek to get some technical aid from RF specialists. This has backfired badly because we, the volunteers who have sacrificed countless hours on your behalf, have not had the time to put together a hundred pages of supporting documentation to tell the story in a coherent fashion so not only do we look like idiots, we have had to do things like waste 3.5 hours writing this silly note when I should have been asleep.
Lastly. I have been accused here of being a con artist. I resent it. I don't need to con anyone. Frankly, I don't have to be here at all. I choose to be.
Bob N4HY
-- AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein
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
I wrote:
If AMSAT-NA is building sats in close circle they just have to openly admitted it even if admission is not a very spoken word.
Things seems to evoluate! and evolution often passed by revolution. We learn once upon the time years ago some south the border choose to make a revolution as they seems it was the only one way to achieve their goals. Are we starting to learn from the past?
He wrote
I am not interested in flying a carbon copy of P3E when I know it makes no sense whatsoever.
I wrote:
Who is driving AMSAT-NA an hollow BOD? an hollow president? Or a third builders manipulating wing who blackmail the BOD?
None of them? I let the conclusion yours!
He wrote:
If elected to the board, and it changes direction, I will offer my seat to the first alternate.
He wrote:
I am 52 years old and one of the most active technical contributors in all of amateur radio
I wrote:
Even the Goa'Uld the self proclaim gods can be replaced.... And i wrote " but your involvement is not questioned here" no more blackmail please we used to be sick of this. It is a burden AMSAT-NA pull since too many years now, it is openly admitted and publicly show today. Remember why they celebrate on the 4th of July? an evolution or a revolution or both?
To concluded the truth FINALLY came out. Now AMSAT-NA BOD what you will do with a majority of your members who wants to have S band downlink on Eagle? Nothing is perfect in the communication field why not simply build for this time a KISS HEO? As per this very clear text it seems we are going towards an evoluted cube type satellite who will be very far from AO-40 and where room seems to be scarce.
My humble suggestion U/V S downlink and if there is still enough room an experimental mode. No switching is bad as it kills S mode downlink to only named this one.
My financial service providers want to sell a special products but my client wants another one. Even if they asked me to pushed their prefer products client wants something else.
After numerous discussion he finally agree that it is better to sell and deliver something than waiting for the few interested ones to buy their prefer one.
All is a matter of choice and please BOD try to listen your membership just in case some can came back!
We are speaking marketing here not science. Give what's the client desire once you will gain his trust you will able to do great things after and with his support.
Amen!
"-" The medium is the message...The content is the audience...;)
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE Skype VE2DWE www.qsl.net/ve2dwe
It appears that Engineering has draw a line in the sand.
Bob states: "I offer the following. If the board votes to change their vision statement and not to build the spacecraft we are proposing, I will tender my resignation as VP Engineering since I will have failed to do the job they elected me to which was to produce a usable concept to meet their vision."
He speaks of "Leadership" but I would argue that a leader doesn't threaten to quit if he fails to get his way, he sticks with the task at hand. The Objectives have changed as originally stated and it appears that the design team is closed to entertaining any further ideas. Sad.
In 1980 I was in the USAF assigned to the UK. I attended the RSGB's Conference at the ole Ali Pali in North London. My first exposure to Amateur Satellite Service was with the AMSAT-UK Contingent who were represented there. I will never forget the cold reception this young (Yank) Ham received from the AMSAT folks. I came to the conclusion then that this was an elitist group and I held that stereotype until I attended a Ham in Austin, TX in 2003.
The AMSAT Coordinator for Austin, TX was at the Hamfest, he had a demo set up for AO-40 and I watched the contacts he made with other hams and I was hooked. This gentleman was very helpful. He patiently answered all of my questions. That day, I purchased a downconverter and Bar-B-Que dish from Bob (K5GNA) and proceeded to get on AO-40. I have to say that is without a doubt the most fun I have had with Ham Radio (39 years). My small dish and helix antenna are still up on the mast ready for the next HEO Bird. I do remember working the RS Satellites with relative little difficulty earlier, with little mentoring , or cash out lay. What happened to just having fun on Ham Radio? AO-40 was just challenging enough, I constructed my own antennas, read all of the many on-line recourses available to learn how to squeeze as much signal as possible on the S Band downlink. I remembered reliving the same types of experiences I had as a Novice making my first contacts.
Based on some of the post on this BB, I can't help but think that this contentious issue is more about having antenna real estate, power budget, that support new applications. The increased noise is simply a red herring for those with more ambitious goals.
I don't claim to speak for the rank and file, this is my opinion based largely on recent post to the AMSAT BB.
Regards, - Joe K7ZT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Luc Leblanc VE2DWE" lucleblanc6@videotron.ca To: AMSAT-BB@amsat.org Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 1:55 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band downlink on P3E
I wrote:
If AMSAT-NA is building sats in close circle they just have to openly admitted it even if admission is not a very spoken word.
Things seems to evoluate! and evolution often passed by revolution. We learn once upon the time years ago some south the border choose to make a revolution as they seems it was the only one way to achieve their goals. Are we starting to learn from the past?
He wrote
I am not interested in flying a carbon copy of P3E when I know it makes no sense whatsoever.
I wrote:
Who is driving AMSAT-NA an hollow BOD? an hollow president? Or a third builders manipulating wing who blackmail the BOD?
None of them? I let the conclusion yours!
He wrote:
If elected to the board, and it changes direction, I will offer my seat to the first alternate.
He wrote:
I am 52 years old and one of the most active technical contributors in all of amateur radio
I wrote:
Even the Goa'Uld the self proclaim gods can be replaced.... And i wrote " but your involvement is not questioned here" no more blackmail please we used to be sick of this. It is a burden AMSAT-NA pull since too many years now, it is openly admitted and publicly show today. Remember why they celebrate on the 4th of July? an evolution or a revolution or both?
To concluded the truth FINALLY came out. Now AMSAT-NA BOD what you will do with a majority of your members who wants to have S band downlink on Eagle? Nothing is perfect in the communication field why not simply build for this time a KISS HEO? As per this very clear text it seems we are going towards an evoluted cube type satellite who will be very far from AO-40 and where room seems to be scarce.
My humble suggestion U/V S downlink and if there is still enough room an experimental mode. No switching is bad as it kills S mode downlink to only named this one.
My financial service providers want to sell a special products but my client wants another one. Even if they asked me to pushed their prefer products client wants something else.
After numerous discussion he finally agree that it is better to sell and deliver something than waiting for the few interested ones to buy their prefer one.
All is a matter of choice and please BOD try to listen your membership just in case some can came back!
We are speaking marketing here not science. Give what's the client desire once you will gain his trust you will able to do great things after and with his support.
Amen!
"-" The medium is the message...The content is the audience...;)
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE Skype VE2DWE www.qsl.net/ve2dwe _______________________________________________ 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
At 11:41 PM 9/8/2006, Joe Westbrook wrote:
It appears that Engineering has draw a line in the sand.
Bob states: "I offer the following. If the board votes to change their vision statement and not to build the spacecraft we are proposing, I will tender my resignation as VP Engineering since I will have failed to do the job they elected me to which was to produce a usable concept to meet their vision."
He speaks of "Leadership" but I would argue that a leader doesn't threaten to quit if he fails to get his way, he sticks with the task at hand. The Objectives have changed as originally stated and it appears that the design team is closed to entertaining any further ideas. Sad.
Joe: if you took the time to stop being paranoid, you'd understand that Bob is trying to do the honorable thing. What he is saying is that if the BoD has a vote of non-confidence in him, he'll resign, and furthermore, if he was a BoD member, he'd resign that too to make room for someone who the BoD would have more confidence in ...
I think this is just another example of "What have you done for me lately?!"
No wonder people tire of volunteering - we accuse them all of being crooked and deceitful, and when they try to be honorable, we crap on them just a little bit more.
Bob: I'm proud of you for being blunt and straight-forward, and I for one am proud to be your friend.
I wouldn't blame you for saying "shove it" and just quitting, but stick it out - even a lot of the paranoid nay-sayers will eventually understand what is going on.
Dave VE3GYQ/W8 Spencerville, OH
In 1980 I was in the USAF assigned to the UK. I attended the RSGB's Conference at the ole Ali Pali in North London. My first exposure to Amateur Satellite Service was with the AMSAT-UK Contingent who were represented there. I will never forget the cold reception this young (Yank) Ham received from the AMSAT folks. I came to the conclusion then that this was an elitist group and I held that stereotype until I attended a Ham in Austin, TX in 2003.
The AMSAT Coordinator for Austin, TX was at the Hamfest, he had a demo set up for AO-40 and I watched the contacts he made with other hams and I was hooked. This gentleman was very helpful. He patiently answered all of my questions. That day, I purchased a downconverter and Bar-B-Que dish from Bob (K5GNA) and proceeded to get on AO-40. I have to say that is without a doubt the most fun I have had with Ham Radio (39 years). My small dish and helix antenna are still up on the mast ready for the next HEO Bird. I do remember working the RS Satellites with relative little difficulty earlier, with little mentoring , or cash out lay. What happened to just having fun on Ham Radio? AO-40 was just challenging enough, I constructed my own antennas, read all of the many on-line recourses available to learn how to squeeze as much signal as possible on the S Band downlink. I remembered reliving the same types of experiences I had as a Novice making my first contacts.
Based on some of the post on this BB, I can't help but think that this contentious issue is more about having antenna real estate, power budget, that support new applications. The increased noise is simply a red herring for those with more ambitious goals.
I don't claim to speak for the rank and file, this is my opinion based largely on recent post to the AMSAT BB.
Regards,
- Joe K7ZT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Luc Leblanc VE2DWE" lucleblanc6@videotron.ca To: AMSAT-BB@amsat.org Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 1:55 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band downlink on P3E
I wrote:
If AMSAT-NA is building sats in close circle they just have to openly admitted it even if admission is not a very spoken word.
Things seems to evoluate! and evolution often passed by revolution. We learn once upon the time years ago some south the border choose to make a revolution as they seems it was the only one way to achieve their goals. Are we starting to learn from the past?
He wrote
I am not interested in flying a carbon copy of P3E when I know it makes no sense whatsoever.
I wrote:
Who is driving AMSAT-NA an hollow BOD? an hollow president? Or a third builders manipulating wing who blackmail the BOD?
None of them? I let the conclusion yours!
He wrote:
If elected to the board, and it changes direction, I will offer my seat to the first alternate.
He wrote:
I am 52 years old and one of the most active technical contributors in all of amateur radio
I wrote:
Even the Goa'Uld the self proclaim gods can be replaced.... And i wrote " but your involvement is not questioned here" no more blackmail please we used to be sick of this. It is a burden AMSAT-NA pull since too many years now, it is openly admitted and publicly show today. Remember why they celebrate on the 4th of July? an evolution or a revolution or both?
To concluded the truth FINALLY came out. Now AMSAT-NA BOD what you will do with a majority of your members who wants to have S band downlink on Eagle? Nothing is perfect in the communication field why not simply build for this time a KISS HEO? As per this very clear text it seems we are going towards an evoluted cube type satellite who will be very far from AO-40 and where room seems to be scarce.
My humble suggestion U/V S downlink and if there is still enough room an experimental mode. No switching is bad as it kills S mode downlink to only named this one.
My financial service providers want to sell a special products but my client wants another one. Even if they asked me to pushed their prefer products client wants something else.
After numerous discussion he finally agree that it is better to sell and deliver something than waiting for the few interested ones to buy their prefer one.
All is a matter of choice and please BOD try to listen your membership just in case some can came back!
We are speaking marketing here not science. Give what's the client desire once you will gain his trust you will able to do great things after and with his support.
Amen!
"-" The medium is the message...The content is the audience...;)
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE Skype VE2DWE www.qsl.net/ve2dwe _______________________________________________ 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
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
This thread reminds me of the Engineering Cartoon with the horse "as requested" and the camel "as delivered" and the caption, "This was engineered by a committee!" Yes, there were comments about 1 hump or 2 on the camel, but that is still in the "design stages". Or was that 3 sats in 13 years, I forget. ;-)
I just mailed my renewal and a little more as a donation to AMSAT-NA, and soon will send a check for the rest of the parts I need to make the S band downconverter work. I have the L band signal to work AO-51 (and have worked her L/U) but I want to try her on L/S, too. If I here more WiFi and cordless phones, than satelite contacts, well, I remember when 11 meters was a HAM band and not the unlicensed band it is today.
The members (who bother to return their ballots) elected the Board who delegate to the VOLUNTEER committees Let us give them time to spend most of their Volunteer time on doing this and not justifying to each member, one at a time, why the members pet agenda is not going to fly.
I'll step down from my soapbox and lurk some more.
73, Jim WA4IVM Amsat 31517 AO 51 on 51 (Yes, first ever sat contact in Feb and had it in less than the year it was offered)
David B. Toth wrote:
At 11:41 PM 9/8/2006, Joe Westbrook wrote:
It appears that Engineering has draw a line in the sand.
Bob states: "I offer the following. If the board votes to change their vision statement and not to build the spacecraft we are proposing, I will tender my resignation as VP Engineering since I will have failed to do the job they elected me to which was to produce a usable concept to meet their vision."
He speaks of "Leadership" but I would argue that a leader doesn't threaten to quit if he fails to get his way, he sticks with the task at hand. The Objectives have changed as originally stated and it appears that the design team is closed to entertaining any further ideas. Sad.
Joe: if you took the time to stop being paranoid, you'd understand that Bob is trying to do the honorable thing. What he is saying is that if the BoD has a vote of non-confidence in him, he'll resign, and furthermore, if he was a BoD member, he'd resign that too to make room for someone who the BoD would have more confidence in ...
I think this is just another example of "What have you done for me lately?!"
No wonder people tire of volunteering - we accuse them all of being crooked and deceitful, and when they try to be honorable, we crap on them just a little bit more.
Bob: I'm proud of you for being blunt and straight-forward, and I for one am proud to be your friend.
I wouldn't blame you for saying "shove it" and just quitting, but stick it out - even a lot of the paranoid nay-sayers will eventually understand what is going on.
Dave VE3GYQ/W8 Spencerville, OH
In 1980 I was in the USAF assigned to the UK. I attended the RSGB's Conference at the ole Ali Pali in North London. My first exposure to Amateur Satellite Service was with the AMSAT-UK Contingent who were represented there. I will never forget the cold reception this young (Yank) Ham received from the AMSAT folks. I came to the conclusion then that this was an elitist group and I held that stereotype until I attended a Ham in Austin, TX in 2003.
The AMSAT Coordinator for Austin, TX was at the Hamfest, he had a demo set up for AO-40 and I watched the contacts he made with other hams and I was hooked. This gentleman was very helpful. He patiently answered all of my questions. That day, I purchased a downconverter and Bar-B-Que dish from Bob (K5GNA) and proceeded to get on AO-40. I have to say that is without a doubt the most fun I have had with Ham Radio (39 years). My small dish and helix antenna are still up on the mast ready for the next HEO Bird. I do remember working the RS Satellites with relative little difficulty earlier, with little mentoring , or cash out lay. What happened to just having fun on Ham Radio? AO-40 was just challenging enough, I constructed my own antennas, read all of the many on-line recourses available to learn how to squeeze as much signal as possible on the S Band downlink. I remembered reliving the same types of experiences I had as a Novice making my first contacts.
Based on some of the post on this BB, I can't help but think that this contentious issue is more about having antenna real estate, power budget, that support new applications. The increased noise is simply a red herring for those with more ambitious goals.
I don't claim to speak for the rank and file, this is my opinion based largely on recent post to the AMSAT BB.
Regards,
- Joe K7ZT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Luc Leblanc VE2DWE" lucleblanc6@videotron.ca To: AMSAT-BB@amsat.org Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 1:55 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band downlink on P3E
I wrote:
If AMSAT-NA is building sats in close circle they just have to openly admitted it even if admission is not a very spoken word.
Things seems to evoluate! and evolution often passed by revolution. We learn once upon the time years ago some south the border choose to make a revolution as they seems it was the only one way to achieve their goals. Are we starting to learn from the past?
He wrote
I am not interested in flying a carbon copy of P3E when I know it makes no sense whatsoever.
I wrote:
Who is driving AMSAT-NA an hollow BOD? an hollow president? Or a third builders manipulating wing who blackmail the BOD?
None of them? I let the conclusion yours!
He wrote:
If elected to the board, and it changes direction, I will offer my seat to the first alternate.
He wrote:
I am 52 years old and one of the most active technical contributors in all of amateur radio
I wrote:
Even the Goa'Uld the self proclaim gods can be replaced.... And i wrote " but your involvement is not questioned here" no more blackmail please we used to be sick of this. It is a burden AMSAT-NA pull since too many years now, it is openly admitted and publicly show today. Remember why they celebrate on the 4th of July? an evolution or a revolution or both?
To concluded the truth FINALLY came out. Now AMSAT-NA BOD what you will do with a majority of your members who wants to have S band downlink on Eagle? Nothing is perfect in the communication field why not simply build for this time a KISS HEO? As per this very clear text it seems we are going towards an evoluted cube type satellite who will be very far from AO-40 and where room seems to be scarce.
My humble suggestion U/V S downlink and if there is still enough room an experimental mode. No switching is bad as it kills S mode downlink to only named this one.
My financial service providers want to sell a special products but my client wants another one. Even if they asked me to pushed their prefer products client wants something else.
After numerous discussion he finally agree that it is better to sell and deliver something than waiting for the few interested ones to buy their prefer one.
All is a matter of choice and please BOD try to listen your membership just in case some can came back!
We are speaking marketing here not science. Give what's the client desire once you will gain his trust you will able to do great things after and with his support.
Amen!
"-" The medium is the message...The content is the audience...;)
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE Skype VE2DWE www.qsl.net/ve2dwe _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
Luc:
There is no blackmail involved. I am capable of doing many different things. YOU elect the board of directors and they will choose the direction of the organization given your input and their own personal biases. <I> choose whether or not their goals and directions interest me enough to participate. If they choose a direction I absolutely believe to be bad for amateur radio and the organization, why would I take my valuable volunteer time to support it? It is a simple statement of facts. I am uninterested in doing what I think is wrong. I support P3E. I think it is the right thing for now. I do not support a duplicate of P3E because I do not want to attempt to hit the magic inclination with a 2000 m/s set of burns and I want to be able to support transponder operations on all major packages 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If we do not do this, we are not answering the AMSAT vision statement which says that is what we will do. I am attempting to lead the engineering VOLUNTEERS to volunteer to meet that goal. If the organization does not wish to support that, my leadership is ineffective, and while I can help the organization, my time and talents are in demand elsewhere and they will be better served and will have a greater impact on amateur radio. I do not wish to duplicate that which was designed in 1980 for a complete different era. The phase 3 program is an engineering marvel. It is essentially one man's absolute genius (Karl) incarnated and captured to varying degrees by the rest of us as the supporting cast. But I do not believe it is appropriate for 2010-2020 given the launch environment, the RF environment, and the legal environment. The frame is too small to support the antennas required to use multiple satellites even to support 7/24 operations. We need a larger frame to support the phased arrays to meet the 70% availability and on and on and on.
I am not emotional about these engineering decisions. I get emotional when people do not use the minds they have been given and allow people who are no longer even members of our organization drive a debate.
I will support the organization with time and talents and continue to support it with my donations but I will not support it making poor decisions with those same time and talents even as I continue to support it with money. I will use what little ability I have elsewhere where it is effective if we make what in my mind are wrong decisions. That is my right. It has nothing to do with blackmail. It is a simple statement of fact. I cannot be effective if I do not believe in the job.
Best 73's Bob N4HY
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE wrote:
I wrote:
If AMSAT-NA is building sats in close circle they just have to openly admitted it even if admission is not a very spoken word.
Things seems to evoluate! and evolution often passed by revolution. We learn once upon the time years ago some south the border choose to make a revolution as they seems it was the only one way to achieve their goals. Are we starting to learn from the past?
He wrote
I am not interested in flying a carbon copy of P3E when I know it makes no sense whatsoever.
I wrote:
Who is driving AMSAT-NA an hollow BOD? an hollow president? Or a third builders manipulating wing who blackmail the BOD?
None of them? I let the conclusion yours!
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert McGwier" rwmcgwier@comcast.net To: "Dave Guimont" dguimon1@san.rr.com Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 12:19 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band downlink on P3E
If elected to the board, and it changes direction, I will offer my seat to the first alternate. Vote for someone else if you do not want P3E built and you do not want the AMSAT vision statement attempted if you have not cast your vote.
Bob N4HY
Hi Bob, N4HY
Can you please explain in simple words what you means for "Vote for someone else if you do not want P3E built ?
Tanks
73" de
i8CVS Domenico
Bob wrote: (clipped)
As are many of us. That said, The S transmitter is not the primary mode of P3E. The S band transmitter on P3E will be hooked to a dish. This dish will have a half power beam width which will limit the usefulness of the S band transmitter to those times of nadir pointing.
First, let me apologize to all; if you will suffer thru me one more time.
Second, most important, if Bob McGwier were to say jump, my first words would be: How high!! When he left our organization a while back, I about had a heart attack. If memory serves, we had the agony of losing several of his caliber about the same time....I would assume (don't care to really know), that some sort of politics were involved, but sure glad to see him back!!
Third, about the same time ECHO was proposed with an FM voice channel. The mode, not the frequency is what I so adamantly objected to. It purportedly would attract new members to help promote the organization's well being. I said it would attract a bunch of 2 meter mentality cry babies, easy-saters, never to advance above that level.....
See if you can find out from board members what ECHO did for our membership numbers and/or donations to our larder...I can't.....
There is very little communication accomplished on Echo other than grid square, name and callsign. The technical challenge is equal to buying a 2 meter rig, and getting on the numerous repeater strings around the country ?? world...
I got on ECHO shortly after it was launched, and got chewed out because I was "dominating the bird" after maybe several minutes of COMMUNICATIONS...
All ECHO communications seem to be here on the reflector, including the basics: name, callsign and grid square......And the proponents call that COMMUNICATIONS????
And if NASA wants to promote 2 meter ham communications, let them do it...Why do some in our organization promote just that under the guise of AMATEUR COMMUNICATIONS and/ or education??
HOGWASH!!
It was not my intent to prefer any frequency or combination of frequencies, just give us ssb/cw with some sort of bandwidth to enable more than two users on a pass....
That said, I can certainly appreciate some user's concerns about the mode S vs mode C choice.
Give me any of them...I'll kludge something together to get on it, and to me that is what will keep my interest...P3E, Eagle, I'm hoggish, I want them both!!
Now if someone could find away to get the money back that was squandered on ECHO, it would give the EAGLE pot a heck of a boost.
I hate to make the statement, but I think AMSAT-NA is already down the tubes, and AMSAT-DL is our only salvation.....
Orchids for ESA's support of AMSAT-DL, and onions for NASA's attempt to lean on us!!!
73, Dave wb6llo@amsat.org Disagree: I learn....
Pulling for P3E...
Hi Bob,
Your response alluded to a desire by many to "duplicate P3E." I didn't read that into the responses. I seriously don't think that's a real issue for discussion.
First the "sunshine" comments.
I "seriously" appreciate the efforts that you and your team have put in, to get us this far in the Eagle development and look forward to a satellite that will have capabilities for many communicators.
Secondly, now lets focus on the "not so sunshiny" issue being discussed - a 2.4 GHz downlink.
I am involved with UWB (Ultra Wide Band) design and deployment. I won't go into UWB details (except to say it will operate somewhere above 3 to 4 GHz with a very, very wide instantaneous bandwidth) but my marketing guys say it will offer the wireless systems of the near future. They may be wrong but I think they're on to something. Why? Simple facts bear them out.
Lets just take the cordless phone history. We once had 49 MHz cordless phones. They're now gone. Same with 900 MHz phones. Currently 2.4 Ghz is the cordless phone "de jur." But what's right around the corner?
Fact (1): You could just look at the new 5.8 GHz product offerings by Hittite, Sirenza, Freescale and whole lot more to see where they're placing their design emphasis but today was shopping day so I thought I'd do some simple consumer research, if you will.
My results:
Sam Club offered 5 cordless phones - all the 5.8 Ghz variety (i.e. - no 2.4 GHz phones)
Costco offered 5 cordless phones - 4 were the 5.8 GHz variety and 1 was at 2.4 GHz.
Best Buy - 3 were 5.8 GHz, 2 were 2.4 GHz.
The point: Our electronics industry is bent on creating obsolete throw away products to fuel the economic engines (Being in the industry I can appreciate that). Already the move is on for the WiFi applications at 5.8 GHz (including the high power - 1 watt - 5.8 Ghz applications).
So in 3 years when Eagel is launched I believe it is very possible that the 2.4 GHz interference issue may have gotten better with the clearly predictable consumer industry transitions up the microwave spectrum and at that time maybe we should be concerned with the vulnerability of the proposed 5.8 GHz satellite links???? I believe this argument might be as valid and your groups arguments.
I would also ask - if the inference problem at 2.4 GHz is as severe as you repeatedly state - how come the cordless phones and WiFi systems don't drown themselves out an collapse with their own sea of mutual interference?
What I have been reading is a preponderance of AO-40 2.4 GHz operators who have experienced some interference but it didn't destroy their use of the capability. So what's so new about amateurs working with some QRM.
So instead of just bitching I'm offering some alternatives that could "sooth the masses!"
Proposal): Put in place a parallel "2.4 GHz team" to design and build a 2.4 GHz downlink capability in the off chance your dire predictions could be wrong and room and current can be budgeted for it. Sure - problems will abound but its a proactive activity that is worth considering.
Proposal (2): As has been suggested here, lets put as much energy in getting our satellite allocations modified as we have used to argue 2.4 GHz. While it might be too late, WRC-2007 is around the corner and perhaps we can still lobby the FCC's Informal Working Group 4 to help us out.
I would offer my help with Proposal (1) and I'm sure there are really qualified members would could pursue Proposal (2)
Respectfully (and I mean that)
Bill - N6GHz AMSAT #21049
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org]On Behalf Of Robert McGwier Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 3:19 AM To: Dave Guimont Cc: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band downlink on P3E
Dave Guimont wrote:
73, Dave wb6llo@amsat.org Disagree: I learn.... Pulling for P3E...
As are many of us. That said, The S transmitter is not the primary mode of P3E. The S band transmitter on P3E will be hooked to a dish. This dish will have a half power beam width which will limit the usefulness of the S band transmitter to those times of nadir pointing.
The revelation of the results of our meeting, weeks before we could be ready to explain carefully that we are taking a system approach to the design of Eagle, is unfortunate. Not because the conclusions are made public but because there is no context for the decision making process.
We cannot build an AO-40 class spacecraft. We do not have the personnel, the facilities, and we likely do not have sufficient talent that we can devote to such an enterprise. We have talent in this organization and around the world. But all of that talent leads a life outside of AMSAT. As an engineering manager for AMSAT it is my responsibility to make cold hard decisions based on personnel, calculation, advice, studies, equipment availability, the availability of launches that we can use and on and on.
The organization overreacted to AO-40. It downsized Eagle considerably. It set a goal of no motor. It said "let's do digital" and "give them a whip antenna on two meters". It did not say this in a crass manner but those were absolutely the conclusions of the organization policies when captured into engineering possibilities. It has literally taken me 11 months to ALMOST right the ship. If the other people in the room will admit to it, I single handedly saved the linear transponders in our current designs by
a) picking the receiver designer b) picking the transmitter designer c) choosing SDX as the overall concept for the linear transponder
EVERYONE is on board. But do you think such things are done overnight? NO. They are done with leadership and not by whining. These decisions and their outcome led to a MUCH improved antenna system, power amplifier, and absolutely cutting edge efficiencies achievable for this transponder in our current plans. It went from 25 kHz fed to a quarter wave monopole on the back side of the spacecraft to serious antenna absolute eating valuable territory on the business side of the spacecraft and with bandwidth UP TO (but not necessarily) 100 kHz wide. The bandwidth will be determined by the TYPE of customers we wish to serve. We do not want to serve only those who can transmit 10 kW EIRP. We do want to support 1 KW EIRP SSB contacts. We also want to support a text messaging service that will require a shortened dipole on 70cm and 2m which will not be limited to APRS users.
The goals stated by the AMSAT board of directors for its next HEO spacecraft design as a follow on to P3E (besides supporting P3E in the interim) included aiding those people who live in CC&R (covenant restricted) communities. It included aiding the first responders by giving them the ability to take a back pack full of equipment, set it up, and operate quickly. It stated that it wanted to produce a system of such satellites over a decade to be available 7/24.
We have a concept, not a design, for a spacecraft. This concept is an "upsizing" of the near cubical Eagle. We are filling in the blanks on the concept in an attempt to present a design.
The concepts we are building to include the ability to use the transponders on this spacecraft 365 days a year, in EVERY year the spacecraft is functional and to try and build a spacecraft that will be there and still usable when the third in the constellation is launched. Do you think this is easy? Of course not. It is easy to pitch mud when you are not responsible for an outcome.
We are attempting to have NO bad seasons. We are attempting to have NO funny orbital problems. We are attempting to have the gain antennas solidly usable over 70% of the entire orbit. For these reasons and because of the desire to serve the CC&R customers, this meant we had to use microwaves to get sufficient gain on the antennas on the spacecraft and the ground. We fully understand that Dick Jansson, Drew, Dave, Tony, and others can give us anecdotes of how they can throw enough gain on their antenna system and make S band work for them. I believe they will not be happy with a 60 cm dish but will require a much larger dish to be happy and I am certain they would do it. I do not care. They are not who I am computing for. These are not the customers I am trying to serve. The customers I want to serve for the future of AMSAT cannot be served by a scratchy SSB signal and a (now) 4 foot dish. I have a mission directive from the board of directors you elected and voted for to serve these NEW customers. Those who will be here when the third satellite is launched. They will not be where Dave will be by then. I apologize for the crassness of this remark, but I am trying to make a point. I know Dave and have for nearly 30 years.. We are building for a guessed audience, with a guessed legal and RF environment, with a guessed ability to deliver 3 such payloads over the next 13 years.
COLD HARD CALCULATION went into this analysis based on our best guesses and analyses. Given what we believe the environment will be We can only do this on microwaves and we can only do it digitally. PERIOD. End of story. God (as demonstrated through the mathematics of Claude Shannon) has dictated this outcome. We did not sit in a back room and decide what new toys we would throw your way to delight ourselves and to screw you (no more smoke and no more drink in there, we have grown old and boring) . To do it, I have to build a very complex antenna system that will take up most of the available area on the spacecraft for antennas. I cannot build a three axis stabilized spacecraft (I do not have the team or the money to do it), so I must do it with phased arrays. Matt Ettus has given us a great head start on this design and Tom Clark and John Stephensen have done great work on the antennas so far. We will test these antenna designs in the next twelve months thanks to a very generous antenna test range offer and design help by one of our members.
The direction Jim and I gave our engineering team was that we cannot rely on this to work perfectly and meet every operational goal perfectly. STUFF HAPPENS. We are attempting to be ambitious but we absolutely must have a credible back up in case this system does not meet our expectations. We now have the upgraded Mode B transponder design which I believe will be the sweetest one flown since Oscar 7's Mode B. Fully equipped with the channelized AGC (Leila or Stella), generating HELAPS with modern technology and new fantastic amplifier components.
I gave the argument to our engineering team that I have witnessed one experimental, new widget after another get built, flown, and then have its designers disheartened and dejected because it got "RUDAK'ed". It never really gets used or fully developed. It drifts into an inert lump that people mumble about when they are asked of their involvement. I insisted on enough spacecraft power generation to run BOTH the linear transponder and the digital transponder simultaneously and 365 days a year, EVERY year. This is the single most expensive decision we have made. We might spend 1/2 to 3/4 MILLION dollars on solar panels to accomplish this. I have insisted we have enough antenna space to make all of the antennas credible and based on calculation of the required antenna gains to close the links. Again, Claude Shannon has interpreted the natural laws and dictated the outcome. Cold hard calculation has gone into the needed solar generators, and the size of spacecraft required to support this.
It will be about 4 feet across and look initially like a scaled DOWN AO-40 at launch if the concept becomes our design.
We cannot deliver the quality of services we are demanding of ourselves if we fly all of the bands to be flown on P3E. We do not have the power or the antenna territory to meet our goals for these services.
I have taken my direction from the board of directors of this organization. They made the vision statement. They can change it. You elected them.
Several things will happen in October. We will install four directors. I may, or may not, be one of them. The board will vote whether or not to retain me as the VP Engineering. I have made almost NO ONE happy by slowing down those who drive me crazy with wanting to rush head long in a ready fire aim approach by demanding that we calculate our way to the vision statement to show the directors the consequences of the decision making processes. I have to tell you, I am damn proud of how much has been done in eleven months. Stuff got put on hold that aggravated many. We all make decisions about the way things have to go but I have done my best to aim us in a technically feasible direction. I do not have time to do all the everyone wants me to do. I will continue to do my best if I stay in the job.
I offer the following. If the board votes to change their vision statement and not to build the spacecraft we are proposing, I will tender my resignation as VP Engineering since I will have failed to do the job they elected me to do which was to produce a usable concept to meet their vision. I am not interested in flying a carbon copy of P3E when I know it makes no sense whatsoever. I am 52 years old and one of the most active technical contributors in all of amateur radio. I will not waste my time doing what I know in my heart and my head is not in the best interests of amateur radio even if it is currently perceived to be for the good of the shrinking aging membership of AMSAT. It would be irresponsible of me not to attempt to aid the organization in addressing a new group of members while attempting to thread the needle of serving our current members. If elected to the board, and it changes direction, I will offer my seat to the first alternate. Vote for someone else if you do not want P3E built and you do not want the AMSAT vision statement attempted if you have not cast your vote.
The story you have just been told should not have come out in this form. It was NEVER meant to be displayed in this form. The calculations were made at the first of July. They have undergone several iterations and were not really put in there latest form until August. In an attempt to get further interest from the microwave community, we made a decision to give a sneak peek to get some technical aid from RF specialists. This has backfired badly because we, the volunteers who have sacrificed countless hours on your behalf, have not had the time to put together a hundred pages of supporting documentation to tell the story in a coherent fashion so not only do we look like idiots, we have had to do things like waste 3.5 hours writing this silly note when I should have been asleep.
Lastly. I have been accused here of being a con artist. I resent it. I don't need to con anyone. Frankly, I don't have to be here at all. I choose to be.
Bob N4HY
-- AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein
_______________________________________________ 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
At 11:38 AM 9/7/2006, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
I am in _TOTAL_ agreement. I live in the suburbs of Tampa/St. Pete and never had an interference problem on my 3 foot dish. I have used the same dish to log well over a dozen WiFi access points in that immediate neighborhood. With properly designed equipment, all that trash on 2.4 ghz goes away with some elevation. What won't work is helixes with multiple sidelobes, and surplus dishes that let one whole polarity of noise right thru the back.
I agree on the dish completely - when I had a BBQ (non) dish there was some noise until I covered it with screen, then it mostly went away. Even then, it was perhaps S-1 above the noise level, not anywhere near the S-3 I experience on 70cm and the S-6 I experience on 2M. With AO-51 I use a 2.4G yagi, and have never had any noise problems with it either.
Perhaps I've missed something but has the Eagle team published any empirical data on the subject?
73,
Emily
Ok guy's, how about a test ? Why not everyone who is mode L/S capable get on AO-51 between September 11, and September 18th and post all results here? Or have another mode V/S session for the L band challenged? All we need is degree(s) of elevation worked, type of antenna, and rx environment, and quality of rx signal received. This should tell us what we want to know. I don't think there is a problem, as I worked up to 10 stations a pass last mode V/S session , and didn't hear anyone complain....
73 Jeff kb2m
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Glasbrenner" glasbrenner@mindspring.com To: "Rick Fletcher" rfletcher@plumdragon.com; "'AMSAT'" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 2:38 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band downlink on P3E
Rick,
I am in _TOTAL_ agreement. I live in the suburbs of Tampa/St. Pete and never had an interference problem on my 3 foot dish. I have used the same dish to log well over a dozen WiFi access points in that immediate neighborhood. With properly designed equipment, all that trash on 2.4 ghz goes away with some elevation. What won't work is helixes with multiple sidelobes, and surplus dishes that let one whole polarity of noise right thru the back.
Everyone knows I'm a big supporter of AMSAT, but I gotta call it as I see it. It makes me think of "bait and switch" to collect money for a project featuring such a popular mode and then drop it.
The loss of Mode B on AO-40 caused a lot of the hardcore AO-10/AO-13 types to walk away, and that was tough to overcome. Now that we have, and we have people wanting S band, we leave them behind too. Even if it's a sound engineering decision (and that hasn't been proven to me) it's a horrid marketing decision. Bad mojo for a organization that lives on the donations of it's members.
Sorry if this causes any pain to those involved with Eagle, but I needed to get it off my chest.
73, Drew KO4MA AMSAT LM 2332
While AO-40 was still alive and I was working it from deep within "Silicon Valley", an area blanketed by WiFi, 2.4GHz cordless phones, etc., I discovered that a parabolic dish with a properly positioned and designed patch feed (slightly under-illuminating the dish and having no significant side-lobes) would bring in AO-40's S-band downlink very nicely and cleanly.
Of course, other feed or antenna types such as helical antennas/feeds were useless in that environment.
I have to admit that I don't buy the "too noisy" argument.
73,
Rick KG6IAL
While I'm also disappointed in the lack of a 2.4 GHz downlink, I think the rational laid out in the latest AMSAT Journal presents a reasonable analysis of the situation.
The few weeks I was able to use my S Band equipment (K5GNA downconverter + 60 cm dish + K3TZ design patch feed) AO40 never rendered what I would refer to as an ear drum popping signal, the best I ever achieved was around an S5.
Now, let me provide the disclaimer that I am not an engineer nor rocket scientist, but assuming the 17db increased noise floor reference in the Eagle Update article is correct, and the general convention that receiver S units are about 5 db, I believe that the best case signal I would hear at my location would be around an S2. Now from experience I've found that the best case signal represents a only a small part of the total pass visibility.
I also believe that it would be impractical to increase the satellite's transmitter output to make up for the increased terrestrial noise floor, given the power generation and payload constraints of the proposed Eagle design.
Since we (speaking as an AMSAT member) build very capable satellites on a shoe string budget (compared to commercial operators) I feel that every opportunity to advance the communications and aerospace state of the art must be taken, in view of the fact that launch vehicle availability is extremely limited for non-professional organizations. To my mind, the design team are making the best engineering decisions they can.
73,
John AA2BN AMSAT 22683
Hello all,
I agree also. In addition, don't forget a great benefit of S-band downlink:
the antenna is just a TVRO dish + a patch (or small helix), with great efficiency! I remember the good old days of AO-40, it was possible to access the Satellite just by using a small 10 el. Yagi for Uplink and a small Dish for downlink. The "monster" VHF-UHF crossed Yagi antennas for AO-10 & 13 always was a reason to discourage me from these birds. In contrast, the simplicity of AO-40-gear was very attractive for me and I believe for many other Hams. No Crossed-Yagis, no LNAs, no Coaxial relays etc... Just a Dish, a feeder, a Downconverter and several meters of cheap coaxial cable up to the shack!
I think is wrong to exclude this band from Eagle even the WiFi is grow-up... in any case we have already the S-band equipments and I don't remember an easier way to receive a Satellite.
73, Mak SV1BSX
sv1bsx@yahoo.gr http://www.qsl.net/sv1bsx
LAN eMail-Server: This Email has been checked by NAV 2005 Virus Free
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Glasbrenner" glasbrenner@mindspring.com To: "Rick Fletcher" rfletcher@plumdragon.com; "'AMSAT'" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 9:38 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band downlink on P3E
Rick,
I am in _TOTAL_ agreement. I live in the suburbs of Tampa/St. Pete and
never
had an interference problem on my 3 foot dish. I have used the same dish
to
log well over a dozen WiFi access points in that immediate neighborhood. With properly designed equipment, all that trash on 2.4 ghz goes away with some elevation. What won't work is helixes with multiple sidelobes, and surplus dishes that let one whole polarity of noise right thru the back.
Everyone knows I'm a big supporter of AMSAT, but I gotta call it as I see it. It makes me think of "bait and switch" to collect money for a project featuring such a popular mode and then drop it.
The loss of Mode B on AO-40 caused a lot of the hardcore AO-10/AO-13 types to walk away, and that was tough to overcome. Now that we have, and we
have
people wanting S band, we leave them behind too. Even if it's a sound engineering decision (and that hasn't been proven to me) it's a horrid marketing decision. Bad mojo for a organization that lives on the
donations
of it's members.
Sorry if this causes any pain to those involved with Eagle, but I needed
to
get it off my chest.
73, Drew KO4MA AMSAT LM 2332
While AO-40 was still alive and I was working it from deep within
"Silicon
Valley", an area blanketed by WiFi, 2.4GHz cordless phones, etc., I discovered that a parabolic dish with a properly positioned and designed patch feed (slightly under-illuminating the dish and having no
significant
side-lobes) would bring in AO-40's S-band downlink very nicely and
cleanly.
Of course, other feed or antenna types such as helical antennas/feeds
were
useless in that environment.
I have to admit that I don't buy the "too noisy" argument.
73,
Rick KG6IAL
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
__________________________________________________ ×ñçóéìïðïéåßôå Yahoo!; ÂáñåèÞêáôå ôá åíï÷ëçôéêÜ ìçíýìáôá (spam); Ôï Yahoo! Mail äéáèÝôåé ôçí êáëýôåñç äõíáôÞ ðñïóôáóßá êáôÜ ôùí åíï÷ëçôéêþí ìçíõìÜôùí http://mail.yahoo.gr
Hi Mak, Plain and simple ... and CORRECT!. I endorse your opinion.
73 John. la2qaa@amsat.org .............................................................................................................
Hello all,
I agree also. In addition, don't forget a great benefit of S-band downlink:
the antenna is just a TVRO dish + a patch (or small helix), with great efficiency! I remember the good old days of AO-40, it was possible to access the Satellite just by using a small 10 el. Yagi for Uplink and a small Dish for downlink. The "monster" VHF-UHF crossed Yagi antennas for AO-10 & 13 always was a reason to discourage me from these birds. In contrast, the simplicity of AO-40-gear was very attractive for me and I believe for many other Hams. No Crossed-Yagis, no LNAs, no Coaxial relays etc... Just a Dish, a feeder, a Downconverter and several meters of cheap coaxial cable up to the shack!
I think is wrong to exclude this band from Eagle even the WiFi is grow-up... in any case we have already the S-band equipments and I don't remember an easier way to receive a Satellite.
73, Mak SV1BSX
At 04:38 AM 9/8/2006, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
Rick,
I am in _TOTAL_ agreement. I live in the suburbs of Tampa/St. Pete and never had an interference problem on my 3 foot dish. I have used the same dish to log well over a dozen WiFi access points in that immediate neighborhood. With properly designed equipment, all that trash on 2.4 ghz goes away with some elevation. What won't work is helixes with multiple sidelobes, and surplus dishes that let one whole polarity of noise right thru the back.
Reading yours and Rick's message, I'd have to agree. Since you've both proven that there is an easy, inexpensive and effective way to deal with the QRM from terrestrial devices on 2.4 GHz, it makes sense to keep using the band and to Elmer others in the art of constructing an effective antenna with minimum sidelobes. 2.4 GHz is also a relatively easy band to get on, due to the availability of surplus downconverters, so there's another reason to keep using it.
If I ever get the time (yeah, right!), I'll try 2.4 GHz from my backyard. My environment is not friendly, I have at least one 2.4 GHz WiFi network, and behind is a school with multiple APs spread across the band. I think I'll be taking your advice re the antenna. I have most of the parts already. If I succeed, then anyone can, unless you've stuck the WiFi AP at the focal point of the dish! ;)
73 de VK3JED http://vkradio.com
I have read something recently [I'll have to dig it out if proof is required] that even low horizon 2.4GHz is possible with basic equipment. So, despite all the other interlopers, don't give up on it as a band yet.
73 de
Félim M3HIM IO91ot Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, UK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Fletcher" rfletcher@plumdragon.com To: "'Félim Doyle M3HIM'" Felim.M3HIM@ntlworld.com; "'Joseph Trombino Jr'" w2kj@bellsouth.net; "'AMSAT'" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 4:10 PM Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: S band downlink on P3E
While AO-40 was still alive and I was working it from deep within "Silicon Valley", an area blanketed by WiFi, 2.4GHz cordless phones, etc., I discovered that a parabolic dish with a properly positioned and designed patch feed (slightly under-illuminating the dish and having no significant side-lobes) would bring in AO-40's S-band downlink very nicely and cleanly.
Of course, other feed or antenna types such as helical antennas/feeds were useless in that environment.
I have to admit that I don't buy the "too noisy" argument.
73,
Rick KG6IAL
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Félim Doyle M3HIM Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 12:21 AM To: Joseph Trombino Jr; AMSAT Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band downlink on P3E
I was sorry to hear that too (the same week I bought a Cal. Amp. 2.4GHz downconverter). It might be a noisy band but how much can it cost to put the kit on the bird anyway? Even if it is not in regular scheduled use, at least it will be there when (or rather if) another downlink fails.
73 de
Félim M3HIM IO91ot Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, UK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Trombino Jr" w2kj@bellsouth.net To: "AMSAT" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 10:49 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] S band downlink on P3E
Disappointed to find out that there will not be an S band downlink on
Eagle
Will there be an S band downlink on the P3E bird???
Sure hate having to fork over more money each time a new satellite goes up because previous up/downlinks are not being used anymore....makes me wish for more mode A LEO birds (grin)
73, Joe W2KJ
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
_______________________________________________ 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 Joe, W2KJ
I agree completely with you but all is not lost.
P3E will have a S downlink linear between 2400.275 to 2400.425 MHz with the GB at 2400.250 MHz
In a separate mail I have sent to you more detailed information on it.
73" de
i8CVS Domenico
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Trombino Jr" w2kj@bellsouth.net To: "AMSAT" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 11:49 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] S band downlink on P3E
Disappointed to find out that there will not be an S band downlink on
Eagle
Will there be an S band downlink on the P3E bird???
Sure hate having to fork over more money each time a new satellite goes up because previous up/downlinks are not being used anymore....makes me wish for more mode A LEO birds (grin)
73, Joe W2KJ
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
Disappointed to find out that there will not be an S band downlink on
Eagle
Will there be an S band downlink on the P3E bird???
Sure hate having to fork over more money each time a new satellite goes up because previous up/downlinks are not being used anymore....makes me wish for more mode A LEO birds (grin)
73, Joe W2KJ
Another bad move by AMSAT-NA... I don't know if they look at their famous survey about their members opinions here? Probably not could be some one will wake up from lethargy at the next symposium and voices opinions about the maintaining of mode S.
If AMSAT-NA is building sats in close circle they just have to openly admitted it even if admission is not a very spoken word they can at least give some explanations on their facts who leads them to scrap mode S?
Interference? even if they wants to go higher at the time eagle will be in space the higher frequencies will be as crowded as 2.4 actually. We actually see some decreased in 2.4 ghz apparatus as the public always want the most recent goodies even FRS/GMRS are moving to 5.2 ghz.
Suggestion: At the next AMSAT-NA 2006 Space Symposium it will appropriate to voices opinions to the BOD asking them to maintain as planned the mode S.
Just to pointed out on a 2005 AMSAT-NA Dayton Hamvention Jim Sanford WB4GCS made a presentation on eagle project and he said i quote " S band will be our bread and butter on the downlink" a prototype of L/S and C/S where planned for the 2005 Symposium at that time.
He also mention that the C/C project in on a bleeding edge technology (read experimental) and they where not too sure if they will even be able to make it.
Why the C/C band project? he let go this " this will permit some folks to use it from their balcony" the cat goes out the bag AGAIN the same ECHO mindings are resurecting...The guy with an HT will be able to make it without using a huge antenna!
We will never be able to get rid of this obsession and you know now why they want to move up? The guy who live on a balcony is living in an apartment complex where S band in unusable. Here is why the C/C project come up. How many actual sat operator are living in apartments? the majority of some of them?
Here is the whole logics behind this mode S scrapping. If you read a bit behind the lines you will see he speak about P3E where mode S will be present and he confirm some collaboration between both teams. He also say some of the Eagle builders are funding their own project. From this since 2005 we can only see the builders behind the C/C project pushing so hard to a point to get the money previously intended for the 2 S mode TX redirected to their C/C project.
Who is driving AMSAT-NA an hollow BOD? an hollow president? Or a third builders manipulating wing who blackmail the BOD?
None of them? I let the conclusion yours!
P.S.To the BOD its not the best way to attract new members or convince those who leave to rejoin!
"-" The medium is the message...The content is the audience...;)
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE Skype VE2DWE www.qsl.net/ve2dwe Former AMSAT-NA coordonnator and member.
I love these messages; I really can't get enough of them. They really brighten my day. If Luc and AMSAT would bind these into a book, I'd buy it. I'd call it "The AMSAT Anthology of Conspiracy".
Luc, keep on doing what you are doing.
Dave W1EUJ
Disappointed to find out that there will not be an S band downlink on Eagle
Will there be an S band downlink on the P3E bird???
Sure hate having to fork over more money each time a new satellite goes
up
because previous up/downlinks are not being used anymore....makes me
wish
for more mode A LEO birds (grin)
73, Joe W2KJAnother bad move by AMSAT-NA... I don't know if they look at their famous survey about their members opinions here? Probably not could be some one will wake up from lethargy at the next symposium and voices opinions about the maintaining of mode S.
If AMSAT-NA is building sats in close circle they just have to openly admitted it even if admission is not a very spoken word they can at least give some explanations on their facts who leads them to scrap mode S?
Interference? even if they wants to go higher at the time eagle will be in space the higher frequencies will be as crowded as 2.4 actually. We actually see some decreased in 2.4 ghz apparatus as the public always want the most recent goodies even FRS/GMRS are moving to 5.2 ghz.
Suggestion: At the next AMSAT-NA 2006 Space Symposium it will appropriate to voices opinions to the BOD asking them to maintain as planned the mode S.
Just to pointed out on a 2005 AMSAT-NA Dayton Hamvention Jim Sanford WB4GCS made a presentation on eagle project and he said i quote " S band will be our bread and butter on the downlink" a prototype of L/S and C/S where planned for the 2005 Symposium at that time.
He also mention that the C/C project in on a bleeding edge technology (read experimental) and they where not too sure if they will even be able to make it.
Why the C/C band project? he let go this " this will permit some folks to use it from their balcony" the cat goes out the bag AGAIN the same ECHO mindings are resurecting...The guy with an HT will be able to make it without using a huge antenna!
We will never be able to get rid of this obsession and you know now why they want to move up? The guy who live on a balcony is living in an apartment complex where S band in unusable. Here is why the C/C project come up. How many actual sat operator are living in apartments? the majority of some of them?
Here is the whole logics behind this mode S scrapping. If you read a bit behind the lines you will see he speak about P3E where mode S will be present and he confirm some collaboration between both teams. He also say some of the Eagle builders are funding their own project. From this since 2005 we can only see the builders behind the C/C project pushing so hard to a point to get the money previously intended for the 2 S mode TX redirected to their C/C project.
Who is driving AMSAT-NA an hollow BOD? an hollow president? Or a third builders manipulating wing who blackmail the BOD?
None of them? I let the conclusion yours!
P.S.To the BOD its not the best way to attract new members or convince those who leave to rejoin!
"-" The medium is the message...The content is the audience...;)
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE Skype VE2DWE www.qsl.net/ve2dwe Former AMSAT-NA coordonnator and member. _______________________________________________ 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
But if you were a true conspiracy theorist your message would not have made it this far. Some of mine didn't - and I'm no anarchist ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Goncalves" davegoncalves@gmail.com To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 4:27 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: S band downlink on P3E
I love these messages; I really can't get enough of them. They really brighten my day. If Luc and AMSAT would bind these into a book, I'd buy it. I'd call it
"The
AMSAT Anthology of Conspiracy".
Luc, keep on doing what you are doing.
Dave W1EUJ
Disappointed to find out that there will not be an S band downlink on Eagle
Will there be an S band downlink on the P3E bird???
Sure hate having to fork over more money each time a new satellite
goes
up
because previous up/downlinks are not being used anymore....makes me
wish
for more mode A LEO birds (grin)
73, Joe W2KJAnother bad move by AMSAT-NA... I don't know if they look at their
famous
survey about their members opinions here? Probably not could be some one will wake up from lethargy at the next symposium and voices opinions about the maintaining of mode S.
If AMSAT-NA is building sats in close circle they just have to openly admitted it even if admission is not a very spoken word they can at least give some explanations on their facts who leads them to scrap mode S?
Interference? even if they wants to go higher at the time eagle will be
in
space the higher frequencies will be as crowded as 2.4 actually. We actually see some decreased in 2.4 ghz apparatus as the public always want the most recent goodies even FRS/GMRS are
moving
to 5.2 ghz.
Suggestion: At the next AMSAT-NA 2006 Space Symposium it will
appropriate
to voices opinions to the BOD asking them to maintain as planned the mode S.
Just to pointed out on a 2005 AMSAT-NA Dayton Hamvention Jim Sanford WB4GCS made a presentation on eagle project and he said i quote " S band will be our bread and butter
on
the downlink" a prototype of L/S and C/S where planned for the 2005 Symposium at that time.
He also mention that the C/C project in on a bleeding edge technology (read experimental) and they where not too sure if they will even be able to make it.
Why the C/C band project? he let go this " this will permit some folks
to
use it from their balcony" the cat goes out the bag AGAIN the same ECHO mindings are resurecting...The guy with an HT will be able to make it without using a huge antenna!
We will never be able to get rid of this obsession and you know now why they want to move up? The guy who live on a balcony is living in an apartment complex where S band in unusable. Here is why the C/C project come up. How many actual sat operator are living in apartments? the majority of some of them?
Here is the whole logics behind this mode S scrapping. If you read a bit behind the lines you will see he speak about P3E where mode S will be present and he confirm some collaboration between both teams. He also say some of the Eagle builders are funding their own project. From this since 2005 we can only see the builders behind the C/C project pushing so hard to a point to get the money previously intended for the 2 S mode TX redirected to their C/C project.
Who is driving AMSAT-NA an hollow BOD? an hollow president? Or a third builders manipulating wing who blackmail the BOD?
None of them? I let the conclusion yours!
P.S.To the BOD its not the best way to attract new members or convince those who leave to rejoin!
"-" The medium is the message...The content is the audience...;)
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE Skype VE2DWE www.qsl.net/ve2dwe Former AMSAT-NA coordonnator and member. _______________________________________________ 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
-- David Goncalves _______________________________________________ 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
My S band equipment barely got any use with AO-40. Why put new higher freqs on Eagle and leave S Band off? Who wants to invest the time and money into getting gear for a new band when if that sat dies (like AO-40) did the next satellite might not even use that Band. Looks like I will stay with PSE for most of my time.
Les W4SCO www.logwindow.com
At 09:45 AM 9/7/2006, Luc Leblanc VE2DWE wrote:
Disappointed to find out that there will not be an S band downlink on
Eagle
Will there be an S band downlink on the P3E bird???
Sure hate having to fork over more money each time a new satellite goes up because previous up/downlinks are not being used anymore....makes me wish for more mode A LEO birds (grin)
73, Joe W2KJAnother bad move by AMSAT-NA... I don't know if they look at their famous survey about their members opinions here? Probably not could be some one will wake up from lethargy at the next symposium and voices opinions about the maintaining of mode S.
If AMSAT-NA is building sats in close circle they just have to openly admitted it even if admission is not a very spoken word they can at least give some explanations on their facts who leads them to scrap mode S?
Interference? even if they wants to go higher at the time eagle will be in space the higher frequencies will be as crowded as 2.4 actually. We actually see some decreased in 2.4 ghz apparatus as the public always want the most recent goodies even FRS/GMRS are moving to 5.2 ghz.
Suggestion: At the next AMSAT-NA 2006 Space Symposium it will appropriate to voices opinions to the BOD asking them to maintain as planned the mode S.
Just to pointed out on a 2005 AMSAT-NA Dayton Hamvention Jim Sanford WB4GCS made a presentation on eagle project and he said i quote " S band will be our bread and butter on the downlink" a prototype of L/S and C/S where planned for the 2005 Symposium at that time.
He also mention that the C/C project in on a bleeding edge technology (read experimental) and they where not too sure if they will even be able to make it.
Why the C/C band project? he let go this " this will permit some folks to use it from their balcony" the cat goes out the bag AGAIN the same ECHO mindings are resurecting...The guy with an HT will be able to make it without using a huge antenna!
We will never be able to get rid of this obsession and you know now why they want to move up? The guy who live on a balcony is living in an apartment complex where S band in unusable. Here is why the C/C project come up. How many actual sat operator are living in apartments? the majority of some of them?
Here is the whole logics behind this mode S scrapping. If you read a bit behind the lines you will see he speak about P3E where mode S will be present and he confirm some collaboration between both teams. He also say some of the Eagle builders are funding their own project. From this since 2005 we can only see the builders behind the C/C project pushing so hard to a point to get the money previously intended for the 2 S mode TX redirected to their C/C project.
Who is driving AMSAT-NA an hollow BOD? an hollow president? Or a third builders manipulating wing who blackmail the BOD?
None of them? I let the conclusion yours!
P.S.To the BOD its not the best way to attract new members or convince those who leave to rejoin!
"-" The medium is the message...The content is the audience...;)
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE Skype VE2DWE www.qsl.net/ve2dwe Former AMSAT-NA coordonnator and member. _______________________________________________ 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
IF the 2.4 ghz band is no good for future satellite work then WHY is it on P3E ?
My computer network is on 2.4 ghz but it is in my basement and my satellite antennas are on my roof. I changed my cordless phones to 5.6 ghz because the 2.4 ghz ones crashed my sensitive network. Since we would not be transmitting on S band I doubt that a S band downlink from a satellite 40,000 K out in space would crash my network.
If cordless phones on S band would be a possible problem don't most of them hop channels if one channel is busy? if so why not create a small ham beacon that would transmit our callsign at low power to chase the neighbors phones off our sat downlink?
Les W4SCO
participants (26)
-
AL7CR -
Andrew Glasbrenner -
Bill Ress -
Dave Guimont -
David B. Toth -
David Goncalves -
Emily Clarke -
Eric H. Christensen -
Félim Doyle M3HIM -
Greg D. -
i8cvs -
Jeff Griffin -
Jim Wright -
Joe Westbrook -
john hackett -
John Price -
John Zaruba Jr -
Joseph Trombino Jr -
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE -
Rick Fletcher -
Robert McGwier -
Roger Kolakowski -
sco＠sco-inc.com -
Steve Meuse -
SV1BSX -
Tony Langdon