Hey folks,
Mike, WB9L, and I worked cross-satellite at 22:50 UTC. Mike was on AO-51 to the northeast, while I was working AO-16 to the southwest. I heard some other stations that I know were working AO-51, but didn't get any other contacts. Both satellites were low elevation to me here in north Georgia.
73,
Tim - N3TL AMSAT Member No. 36820 Athens, Ga. - EM84ha
isn't cross-satellite operation involving signals travelling BETWEEN satellites before being heard by the other station? AO-16 and AO-51 have their uplinks in the SAME BAND, and downlinks also in the SAME BAND so wouldn't that make it impossible to for either satellite to react to the other?? The way I read this... you are hearing unintentional uplinks to the satellite you're listening on, just because the second sat has an identical uplink, and overlapping footprint. Please correct me if I'm interpreting this wrongly.
73 Auke ----- Original Message ----- From: n3tl@bellsouth.net To: AMSAT-BB@amsat.org Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 5:15 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] WB9L cross-satellite again
Hey folks,
Mike, WB9L, and I worked cross-satellite at 22:50 UTC. Mike was on AO-51 to the northeast, while I was working AO-16 to the southwest. I heard some other stations that I know were working AO-51, but didn't get any other contacts. Both satellites were low elevation to me here in north Georgia.
73,
Tim - N3TL AMSAT Member No. 36820 Athens, Ga. - EM84ha _______________________________________________ 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1728 - Release Date: 10/16/2008 7:38 AM
Wouldn't it have to be, for true cross-satellite operation to occur, the downlink of one satellite to be on the uplink of another? I am also not sure this is true "cross satellite" operation. I would have to agree with Auke, that any signal heard by the other sat would have to be a fluke.
73, Jeff WB2SYK
--- On Sun, 10/19/08, Auke de Jong, VE6PWN sparkycivic@shaw.ca wrote:
From: Auke de Jong, VE6PWN sparkycivic@shaw.ca Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: WB9L cross-satellite again To: AMSAT-BB@amsat.org Date: Sunday, October 19, 2008, 12:30 AM isn't cross-satellite operation involving signals travelling BETWEEN satellites before being heard by the other station? AO-16 and AO-51 have their uplinks in the SAME BAND, and downlinks also in the SAME BAND so wouldn't that make it impossible to for either satellite to react to the other?? The way I read this... you are hearing unintentional uplinks to the satellite you're listening on, just because the second sat has an identical uplink, and overlapping footprint. Please correct me if I'm interpreting this wrongly.
73 Auke ----- Original Message ----- From: n3tl@bellsouth.net To: <> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 5:15 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] WB9L cross-satellite again
Hey folks,
Mike, WB9L, and I worked cross-satellite at 22:50 UTC.
Mike was on AO-51
to the northeast, while I was working AO-16 to the
southwest. I heard some
other stations that I know were working AO-51, but
didn't get any other
contacts. Both satellites were low elevation to me
here in north Georgia.
73,
Tim - N3TL AMSAT Member No. 36820 Athens, Ga. - EM84ha _______________________________________________ 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
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1728 - Release Date: 10/16/2008 7:38 AM
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
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Jeffrey Koehler wrote:
Wouldn't it have to be, for true cross-satellite operation to occur, the downlink of one satellite to be on the uplink of another?
Yes
My apologies to Mssrs. de Jong, Koehler, Gunn and all for my ignorance - i.e., not knowing what else to call these contacts.
WB9L is intentionally working AO-51, which is thousands of km away from and pretty much opposite AO-16, which N3TL is intentionally working. Indeed, both satellites have the same FM/VHF uplink. WB9L copies N3TL on AO-51 at 435.300 +/-, in FM. N3TL copies WB9L on AO-16 at 437.026 +/-, in SSB. It seemed clear to me that a complete contact between these two stations occurred across both satellites.
I'm open to any suggestions regarding a term more accurate than cross-satellite for such contacts.
73 to all,
Tim - N3TL AMSAT Member No. 36820 Athens, Ga. - EM84ha
-------------- Original message from Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF nigel@ngunn.net: --------------
Jeffrey Koehler wrote: > Wouldn't it have to be, for true cross-satellite operation to occur, the downlink of one satellite to be on the uplink of another?
Yes
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 is indeed a strange situation.
But in my mind a "QSO" did not happen.
I don't know.
This is making my Brain Hurt.
Cross bird doesn't fit. Cross bird I would say were if the output from one bird went into another and got relayed.
Again My brain is hurting here.
WB9L is intentionally working AO-51, which is thousands of km away from and pretty much opposite AO-16, which N3TL is intentionally working. Indeed, both satellites have the same FM/VHF uplink. WB9L copies N3TL on AO-51 at 435.300 +/-, in FM. N3TL copies WB9L on AO-16 at 437.026 +/-, in SSB. It seemed clear to me that a complete contact between these two stations occurred across both satellites.
I'm open to any suggestions regarding a term more accurate than cross-satellite for such contacts.
73 to all,
Tim - N3TL AMSAT Member No. 36820 Athens, Ga. - EM84ha
-------------- Original message from Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF nigel@ngunn.net: --------------
Jeffrey Koehler wrote: > Wouldn't it have to be, for true cross-satellite operation to occur, the downlink of one satellite to be on the uplink of another?
Yes
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
How about "an inadvertent QSO'??
73,Jeff WB2SYK
--- On Sun, 10/19/08, Joe nss@mwt.net wrote:
From: Joe nss@mwt.net Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: WB9L cross-satellite again To: n3tl@bellsouth.net Cc: nigel@ngunn.net, jeffk13057@yahoo.com, sparkycivic@chaw.ca, AMSAT-BB@amsat.org Date: Sunday, October 19, 2008, 12:06 PM This is indeed a strange situation.
But in my mind a "QSO" did not happen.
I don't know.
This is making my Brain Hurt.
Cross bird doesn't fit. Cross bird I would say were if the output from one bird went into another and got relayed.
Again My brain is hurting here.
WB9L is intentionally working AO-51, which is thousands
of km away from and pretty much opposite AO-16, which N3TL is intentionally working. Indeed, both satellites have the same FM/VHF uplink. WB9L copies N3TL on AO-51 at 435.300 +/-, in FM. N3TL copies WB9L on AO-16 at 437.026 +/-, in SSB. It seemed clear to me that a complete contact between these two stations occurred across both satellites.
I'm open to any suggestions regarding a term more
accurate than cross-satellite for such contacts.
73 to all,
Tim - N3TL AMSAT Member No. 36820 Athens, Ga. - EM84ha
-------------- Original message from Nigel Gunn
G8IFF/W8IFF nigel@ngunn.net: --------------
Jeffrey Koehler wrote: > Wouldn't it have to
be, for true cross-satellite operation to occur, the
downlink of one satellite to be on the uplink of
another?
Yes
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:
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
It is not a cross-satellite contact but rather a dual satellite operation as if someone was transmitting with 2 ht's at the same time on 2 different repeater!! It is a loss of bandwidth and if you want to see a real cross satellite contact check the PCSAT and PCSAT-1 or 2? experiment.
The only one + i see it's could be the choice to choose between 2 downlinks but i don't know what the real results will be?
I'm open to any suggestions regarding a term more
accurate than cross-satellite for such contacts.
73 to all,
Tim - N3TL
"-"
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE Skype VE2DWE www.qsl.net/ve2dwe WAC BASIC CW PHONE SATELLITE
I would expect that transmitting to AO-7 mode B, and hearing the downlink from FO-29 mode JA, would be an excellent example of this... THAT would be a treat, Hi!
73 Auke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luc Leblanc" lucleblanc6@videotron.ca To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 2:45 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: WB9L cross-satellite again
It is not a cross-satellite contact but rather a dual satellite operation as if someone was transmitting with 2 ht's at the same time on 2 different repeater!! It is a loss of bandwidth and if you want to see a real cross satellite contact check the PCSAT and PCSAT-1 or 2? experiment.
The only one + i see it's could be the choice to choose between 2 downlinks but i don't know what the real results will be?
I'm open to any suggestions regarding a term more
accurate than cross-satellite for such contacts.
73 to all,
Tim - N3TL
"-"
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE Skype VE2DWE www.qsl.net/ve2dwe WAC BASIC CW PHONE SATELLITE
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1732 - Release Date: 10/18/2008 6:01 PM
"But in my mind a 'QSO' did not happen."
On 16 Oct. at 22:50 UTC, WB9L was in a public parking lot doing a satellite demo for some folks using an Icom W32A HT and an Arrow handheld antenna. The only mode he could transmit and receive in is FM. I was here at home, transmitting in FM through a Yaesu VX-7R HT into an eFactor dual-band omni antenna. I was receiving through an Elk dual-band log periodic, handheld, into a Yaesu FT-817ND that was set to receive in USB. No mic was connected to the 817.
As I already have done with Joe, directly, I'll be happy to provide anyone who's interested with an MP3 clip I recorded from the earphone jack on the FT-817 directly into my digital recorder. If what I recorded is not a QSO, I am again open to suggestions about what else to call an amateur radio contact involving two stations whose operators clearly are talking to each other across two separate and distinct satellites that shared a common uplink frequency at the time of this contact. If our contact is not cross-satellite, what is it?
73 to all,
Tim -------------- Original message from Joe nss@mwt.net: --------------
This is indeed a strange situation.
But in my mind a "QSO" did not happen.
I don't know.
This is making my Brain Hurt.
Cross bird doesn't fit. Cross bird I would say were if the output from one bird went into another and got relayed.
Again My brain is hurting here.
WB9L is intentionally working AO-51, which is thousands of km away from and pretty much opposite AO-16, which N3TL is intentionally working. Indeed, both satellites have the same FM/VHF uplink. WB9L copies N3TL on AO-51 at 435.300 +/-, in FM. N3TL copies WB9L on AO-16 at 437.026 +/-, in SSB. It seemed clear to me that a complete contact between these two stations occurred across both
satellites.
I'm open to any suggestions regarding a term more accurate than cross-satellite
for such contacts.
73 to all,
Tim - N3TL AMSAT Member No. 36820 Athens, Ga. - EM84ha
-------------- Original message from Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF :
Jeffrey Koehler wrote: > Wouldn't it have to be, for true cross-satellite
operation to occur, the
downlink of one satellite to be on the uplink of another?
Yes
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
However it happened, a legitimate QSO definately took place.
The query is what we call the method that linked the stations rather than whether it actually happened.
n3tl@bellsouth.net wrote:
"But in my mind a 'QSO' did not happen."
The problem is that the satellites were in parallel. They have to be series connected to count as a cross-satellite contact.
n3tl@bellsouth.net wrote:
WB9L is intentionally working AO-51, which is thousands of km away from and pretty much opposite AO-16, which N3TL is intentionally working. Indeed, both satellites have the same FM/VHF uplink. WB9L copies N3TL on AO-51 at 435.300 +/-, in FM. N3TL copies WB9L on AO-16 at 437.026 +/-, in SSB. It seemed clear to me that a complete contact between these two stations occurred across both satellites.
----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:14:10 +0000 From: nigel@ngunn.net To: n3tl@bellsouth.net CC: sparkycivic@chaw.ca; AMSAT-BB@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: WB9L cross-satellite again
The problem is that the satellites were in parallel. They have to be series connected to count as a cross-satellite contact.
Satellites in series tend to be called a "dual hop" or "duo-hop" mode. Satellites in parallel are a new technique, and just as we use "cross-band" for terrestrial contacts made in parallel on two bands, "cross-satellite" sounds like a good name for putting two birds in parallel.
My $.02...
Greg KO6TH
_________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go—take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/
participants (7)
-
Auke de Jong, VE6PWN -
Greg D. -
Jeffrey Koehler -
Joe -
Luc Leblanc -
n3tl＠bellsouth.net -
Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF