I've worked every ham satellite that has been launched since I got on Oscar 7, cw, most of my gear at that time home brew in 1980.
For the life of me I cannot see any difference in pushing a button on an FM bird than operating a cell phone, except that it is a 2 user operation and the time available is limited...
Waste of good AMSAT funds......skill level 1, on a 1 to 10 basis...
73, Dave, WB6LLO [email protected]
Disagree: I learn....
Pulling for P3E...
I have to disagree. Have you tried working one of the FM birds using a 2 watt ht and a whip antenna ? The FM birds are something I can work while traveling. Have been able to find a SSB setup that is compact enough to carry on a plane.
Look at this from an emergency perspective. If you only had an ht and couldnt access a repeater, you woul at least have a chance to get help on a satellite pass.
Ron Ka4kyi
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:15 AM, Dave Guimont [email protected] wrote:
I've worked every ham satellite that has been launched since I got on Oscar 7, cw, most of my gear at that time home brew in 1980.
For the life of me I cannot see any difference in pushing a button on an FM bird than operating a cell phone, except that it is a 2 user operation and the time available is limited...
Waste of good AMSAT funds......skill level 1, on a 1 to 10 basis...
73, Dave, WB6LLO [email protected] Disagree: I learn.... Pulling for P3E...
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Hi Ron!
I have to disagree. Have you tried working one of the FM birds using a 2 watt ht and a whip antenna ?
Unfortunately, the comments like "I cannot see any difference in pushing a button on an FM bird than operating a cell phone" (from WB6LLO's post in this thread) show up from time to time. If FM satellites were that simple to operate, then everyone who attempted to make an FM satellite QSO during Field Day should have been able to do so. People wouldn't show up in large numbers for the many demonstrations and presentations that AMSAT people put on for radio clubs, hamfests, etc.
The FM birds are something I can work while traveling. Have been able to find a SSB setup that is compact enough to carry on a plane.
This almost reads like you were trying to say "Haven't been able to find a SSB setup that is compact .... ".
With the advent of smaller radios, you *can* carry an SSB satellite setup on a plane that allows all-mode full-duplex satellite operation. I travel with two FT-817NDs, and in recent times a TH-F6A (its all- mode receiver is a backup to the 817 I use as a receiver) also goes along, all in an old laptop bag. If you want computer control of the radios, you can use a netbook with software like SatPC32 - which could also fit in the same bag. Along with these 3 radios, I also take a TH-D72A. It is my APRS radio, and works well as a full- duplex FM satellite radio. That laptop bag also has room for more batteries, a GPS receiver, compass, and and other accessories.
Unless you are using a long flexible whip, the antenna (directional antenna like a Yagi or log periodic, or a telescoping whip) may have to go in a checked bag due to security regulations. The higher-value parts of your station can go with you into the cabin, along with the accessories that are not considered dangerous for carry-on luggage.
Look at this from an emergency perspective. If you only had an ht and couldnt access a repeater, you woul at least have a chance to get help on a satellite pass.
Definitely! You'd have to be quick with your information, but that would be a possibility. Something I always kept in mind on my road trips around northern Arizona and southern Utah in 2009 and 2010, since there were many places without mobile-phone coverage up there. Know when the passes come by, and you can plan to show up on those passes to send and receive information in that sort of situation.
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK http://www.wd9ewk.net/
In terms of a small compact, SSB satellite station, you can work the SSB birds with a single FT817. It is more difficult than having full duplex, but it can be done. I have done it plenty of times with similar radios.
73s John AA5JG
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK) < [email protected]> wrote:
Hi Ron!
I have to disagree. Have you tried working one of the FM birds using a 2 watt ht and a whip antenna ?
Unfortunately, the comments like "I cannot see any difference in pushing a button on an FM bird than operating a cell phone" (from WB6LLO's post in this thread) show up from time to time. If FM satellites were that simple to operate, then everyone who attempted to make an FM satellite QSO during Field Day should have been able to do so. People wouldn't show up in large numbers for the many demonstrations and presentations that AMSAT people put on for radio clubs, hamfests, etc.
The FM birds are something I can work while traveling. Have been able to find a SSB setup that is compact enough to carry on a plane.
This almost reads like you were trying to say "Haven't been able to find a SSB setup that is compact .... ".
With the advent of smaller radios, you *can* carry an SSB satellite setup on a plane that allows all-mode full-duplex satellite operation. I travel with two FT-817NDs, and in recent times a TH-F6A (its all- mode receiver is a backup to the 817 I use as a receiver) also goes along, all in an old laptop bag. If you want computer control of the radios, you can use a netbook with software like SatPC32 - which could also fit in the same bag. Along with these 3 radios, I also take a TH-D72A. It is my APRS radio, and works well as a full- duplex FM satellite radio. That laptop bag also has room for more batteries, a GPS receiver, compass, and and other accessories.
Unless you are using a long flexible whip, the antenna (directional antenna like a Yagi or log periodic, or a telescoping whip) may have to go in a checked bag due to security regulations. The higher-value parts of your station can go with you into the cabin, along with the accessories that are not considered dangerous for carry-on luggage.
Look at this from an emergency perspective. If you only had an ht and couldnt access a repeater, you woul at least have a chance to get help on a satellite pass.
Definitely! You'd have to be quick with your information, but that would be a possibility. Something I always kept in mind on my road trips around northern Arizona and southern Utah in 2009 and 2010, since there were many places without mobile-phone coverage up there. Know when the passes come by, and you can plan to show up on those passes to send and receive information in that sort of situation.
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK http://www.wd9ewk.net/
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
And really, the 910H isn't THAT big....
George, KA3HSW
----- Original Message ----
From: John Geiger [email protected] To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Wed, July 6, 2011 11:06:55 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: FM satellites
In terms of a small compact, SSB satellite station, you can work the SSB birds with a single FT817. It is more difficult than having full duplex, but it can be done. I have done it plenty of times with similar radios.
73s John AA5JG
----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: "Dave Guimont" [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 12:23 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: FM satellites
Look at this from an emergency perspective. If you only had an ht and couldnt access a repeater, you woul at least have a chance to get help on a satellite pass.
Ron Ka4kyi
Hi Ron, KA4KYI
If you are into a real emergency you have not the time to wait for a possible FM satellite pass and have a chance that someone is understanding your problem,your location and how to hep you into the QRM made by a lot of stations calling in the same channel and all at the same time.
A linear transponder in SSB plenty of room for FDMA (Frequency Division Multiple Access ) would be better but not ideal.
In emergency situation novadays a cell-phone is much much better and reliable.
73" de
i8CVS Domenico
In emergency situation novadays a cell-phone is much much better and reliable.
I think there are a lot of people in Haiti that might disagree?
Bob, Wb4APR
On 7/6/2011 4:30 PM, Bob Bruninga wrote:
In emergency situation novadays a cell-phone is much much better and reliable.
I think there are a lot of people in Haiti that might disagree
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people with ham licenses who have never understood or seen the complexity behind cellular networks to understand how fragile they actually are. Sure, the cell site is wireless to you, but it has power and wired telephony requirements that put it several steps on the risk ladder above a ham repeater, and extremely high risk for failure compared to simplex radio comms.
Gregg
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Gregg Wonderly [email protected] wrote:
On 7/6/2011 4:30 PM, Bob Bruninga wrote:
In emergency situation novadays a cell-phone is much much better and reliable.
I think there are a lot of people in Haiti that might disagree
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people with ham licenses who have never understood or seen the complexity behind cellular networks to understand how fragile they actually are. Sure, the cell site is wireless to you, but it has power and wired telephony requirements that put it several steps on the risk ladder above a ham repeater, and extremely high risk for failure compared to simplex radio comms.
That's not it at all as I see it. Does anyone on this list really believe when aliens attack that repeaters will survive but cellular networks will all be done?
Network survival is not the pertinent metric; network *recovery* is.
Bob mentioned Haiti. That is a good example. How many active repeaters do you think are in Haiti? How many do you think survived the Earthquake? How many repeaters are in <insert very poor third-world country here>?
The bottom line is setting up an RF station to communicate vital information is an order of magnitude faster than to rely on the cell companies to restore service. That's the issue.
Now tie this to AMSAT-BB:
If I could switch from using a local cell to one based on geosynchronous satellites than RF would probably not be my first option since cell phones offer more forms of communication than a radio (think HT).
-aps (KC2ZSX)
This is kind of a goofy discussion...people like what people like; I drive to the airport every morning and talk on the 2 or 70 m/cm machine to people who I could conference in on a cell call...but we enjoy it.
As for repeaters holding up. when IKE came through Houston the Bay Area repeater (both of them and the APRS machine) turned into a pretty busy communications hub. The cell tower next to us lost power but we had good generator power and had not even started to seriously invade our "potential energy reserve" when the juice came back on. There was a bout 12 hours when both machines were running as hard as they could with traffic.
Robert G. Oler WB5MZO Life member AMSAT ARRL NARS
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 18:19:23 -0400 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: FM satellites
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Gregg Wonderly [email protected] wrote:
On 7/6/2011 4:30 PM, Bob Bruninga wrote:
In emergency situation novadays a cell-phone is much much better and reliable.
I think there are a lot of people in Haiti that might disagree
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people with ham licenses who have never understood or seen the complexity behind cellular networks to understand how fragile they actually are. Sure, the cell site is wireless to you, but it has power and wired telephony requirements that put it several steps on the risk ladder above a ham repeater, and extremely high risk for failure compared to simplex radio comms.
That's not it at all as I see it. Does anyone on this list really believe when aliens attack that repeaters will survive but cellular networks will all be done?
Network survival is not the pertinent metric; network *recovery* is.
Bob mentioned Haiti. That is a good example. How many active repeaters do you think are in Haiti? How many do you think survived the Earthquake? How many repeaters are in <insert very poor third-world country here>?
The bottom line is setting up an RF station to communicate vital information is an order of magnitude faster than to rely on the cell companies to restore service. That's the issue.
Now tie this to AMSAT-BB:
If I could switch from using a local cell to one based on geosynchronous satellites than RF would probably not be my first option since cell phones offer more forms of communication than a radio (think HT).
-aps (KC2ZSX)
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:44:28 -0500 R Oler [email protected] wrote:
communications hub. The cell tower next to us lost power
I don't really understand how that would happen. How long was the mains down for?
Gordon MM0YEQ
The issue here is not the failure of the cell site, it is the 10 million people that all try to use their cell phones at once. It takes days for people to get their "urgent calls through" before the load goes down enough to have any hope of getting in. But like in Haiti, even after a few days, the emergency persisted and still everyone needed to use their phones for urgent requirements and so the load on the few hundered cell channels persisted....
At least until most people's batteries went dead (due to no power) and only after most of those phones became useless was the demand low enough for those still with enough charge to get a call through.
Again, this is my assumption, not known to be fact. But the fact of cellphone LOAD after a wide area emergency totally blocking service is pretty much fact.
Bob, WB4APR
-----Original Message----- From: Gregg Wonderly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 5:49 PM To: Bob Bruninga Cc: 'i8cvs'; [email protected]; 'Dave Guimont'; 'Amsat - BBs' Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: FM satellites
On 7/6/2011 4:30 PM, Bob Bruninga wrote:
In emergency situation novadays a cell-phone is much much better and reliable.
I think there are a lot of people in Haiti that might disagree
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people with ham licenses who have never understood or seen the complexity behind cellular networks to understand how fragile they actually are. Sure, the cell site is wireless to you, but it has power and wired telephony requirements that put it several steps on the risk ladder above a ham repeater, and extremely high risk for failure compared to simplex radio comms.
Gregg
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Bob Bruninga [email protected] wrote:
The issue here is not the failure of the cell site, it is the 10 million people that all try to use their cell phones at once. It takes days for people to get their "urgent calls through" before the load goes down enough to have any hope of getting in. But like in Haiti, even after a few days, the emergency persisted and still everyone needed to use their phones for urgent requirements and so the load on the few hundered cell channels persisted....
At least until most people's batteries went dead (due to no power) and only after most of those phones became useless was the demand low enough for those still with enough charge to get a call through.
Again, this is my assumption, not known to be fact. But the fact of cellphone LOAD after a wide area emergency totally blocking service is pretty much fact.
http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/03/faster-mobile-broadband-driven-b...
Though I agree with you to some extent (certainly where I live!), the explosion of smartphones will drive the networks to be able to handle larger capacities and you will be able to get through faster.
I truly believe RF's real value in an emergency is that anyone can setup a communication station in minutes because the barrier to entry is very small, i.e. its the response time which is its greatest asset.
-aps (KC2ZSX)
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:33:03 -0400 "Bob Bruninga" [email protected] wrote:
Again, this is my assumption, not known to be fact. But the fact of cellphone LOAD after a wide area emergency totally blocking service is pretty much fact.
Surely that's true of *any* trunked system, though? Once you've filled up all the traffic channels (or timeslots) it's going to start moaning about being busy.
You don't even need a disaster to do that - stand near a football ground just after a game finishes and everyone is coming out, and try to make a call. The city where I live has just switched all their traffic wardens over to mobile phones - it's a disaster when there's any large event on. The MPT1327 system keeps going without a blip... (well, except when BT cock up the tie lines)
Gordon MM0YEQ
On 7 Jul 2011, at 01:33, Bob Bruninga wrote:
The issue here is not the failure of the cell site, it is the 10 million people that all try to use their cell phones at once. It takes days for people to get their "urgent calls through" before the load goes down enough to have any hope of getting in. But like in Haiti, even after a few days, the emergency persisted and still everyone needed to use their phones for urgent requirements and so the load on the few hundered cell channels persisted....
Exactly, It happened in Dunmore East (http://www.waterford-dunmore.com/tourism/web) last Sunday morning. Huge crowds descended on the village to watch the Tall Ships (http://www.waterfordtallshipsrace.ie/) leaving Waterford Harbour in the parade of sail. For several hours it was impossible to send text messages or maintain a voice call (the system suckered you into thinking it was working by ringing, and then the person would answer, the channel lasted long enough to say "hello").
We brought our communications network with us, so it wasn't a problem for us, but it was an eye opener for the County Council people who were 'coordinating' via mobile phone.
Regards John EI7IG
On 7/7/2011 2:57 AM, John Ronan wrote:
On 7 Jul 2011, at 01:33, Bob Bruninga wrote:
The issue here is not the failure of the cell site, it is the 10 million people that all try to use their cell phones at once. It takes days for people to get their "urgent calls through" before the load goes down enough to have any hope of getting in. But like in Haiti, even after a few days, the emergency persisted and still everyone needed to use their phones for urgent requirements and so the load on the few hundered cell channels persisted....
Exactly, It happened in Dunmore East (http://www.waterford-dunmore.com/tourism/web) last Sunday morning. Huge crowds descended on the village to watch the Tall Ships (http://www.waterfordtallshipsrace.ie/) leaving Waterford Harbour in the parade of sail. For several hours it was impossible to send text messages or maintain a voice call (the system suckered you into thinking it was working by ringing, and then the person would answer, the channel lasted long enough to say "hello").
We brought our communications network with us, so it wasn't a problem for us, but it was an eye opener for the County Council people who were 'coordinating' via mobile phone.
The fast majority of people using cellular services don't understand the channelization that occurs and how limiting that is to the total number of people that can use a particular cell at any time.
Gregg Wonderly W5GGW
When the towers are damaged or the power fails to the cell site, cell phones don't even make good boat anchors.
Jim WA4IVM
ps: When the media arrive and overload the system, it gets worse!
On 7/6/2011 5:30 PM, Bob Bruninga wrote:
In emergency situation novadays a cell-phone is much much better and reliable.
I think there are a lot of people in Haiti that might disagree?
Bob, Wb4APR
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Don't you remember 9/11??? Cell phones were useless. Signed, Didn't go home for four days
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Wright Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 6:05 PM To: Bob Bruninga; Amsat-BB Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: FM satellites
When the towers are damaged or the power fails to the cell site, cell phones don't even make good boat anchors.
Jim WA4IVM
ps: When the media arrive and overload the system, it gets worse!
On 7/6/2011 5:30 PM, Bob Bruninga wrote:
In emergency situation novadays a cell-phone is much much better and reliable.
I think there are a lot of people in Haiti that might disagree?
Bob, Wb4APR
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
_______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:05:00 -0400 Jim Wright [email protected] wrote:
When the towers are damaged or the power fails to the cell site, cell phones don't even make good boat anchors.
If the power fails to the cell site, it shouldn't make a difference. They're supposed to have 48 hours of battery backup.
Up here at 58°N most cell sites cover a huge area and have no mains power, so they run on a diesel genny that gets filled up once a week or so.
Gordon MM0YEQ
I meant when the towers fall-antennas and everything.. Power was NOT the problem on 9/11.. Good luck up North... Dee
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gordon JC Pearce Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: FM satellites
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:05:00 -0400 Jim Wright [email protected] wrote:
When the towers are damaged or the power fails to the cell site, cell phones don't even make good boat anchors.
If the power fails to the cell site, it shouldn't make a difference. They're supposed to have 48 hours of battery backup.
Up here at 58°N most cell sites cover a huge area and have no mains power, so they run on a diesel genny that gets filled up once a week or so.
Gordon MM0YEQ
_______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Just a relatively new subscriber question…is this group always so off topic? I understand the source of this post but after a few emails it is clearly nowhere near the original posters comments on why he thinks he can use a satellite versus a cell phone. I have also witnessed many posts that rapidly get into all sorts of things far afield of satellite related things. I have subscribed to many lists and there is usually someone that herds the cats to stay on topic. That seems to be missing here.
Of course, I realize I am welcome to unsubscribe but I do appreciate the nuggets of information actually related to satellites. Maybe I could respectfully suggest that a post like this last one that has devolved to having nothing to do with amateur satellites should have its subject changed to OT:Cell Towers so we all know to ignore the thing.
Thanks,
Tom NY4I
On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Dee wrote:
I meant when the towers fall-antennas and everything.. Power was NOT the problem on 9/11.. Good luck up North... Dee
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gordon JC Pearce Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: FM satellites
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:05:00 -0400 Jim Wright [email protected] wrote:
When the towers are damaged or the power fails to the cell site, cell phones don't even make good boat anchors.
If the power fails to the cell site, it shouldn't make a difference. They're supposed to have 48 hours of battery backup.
Up here at 58°N most cell sites cover a huge area and have no mains power, so they run on a diesel genny that gets filled up once a week or so.
Gordon MM0YEQ
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
This is one thing I have noticed that seems to be unique to ham lists-the reflector police who are worried about off topic posts. Not a shot at you Tom. Your question is just fine. However, I have been on quite a few reflectors where they get very upset about off topic posts. In the past I have belonged to some non-ham reflectors, and nobody ever cared if a thread got off topic. I was talking to a friend about this on 70cm yesterday and he thought the same thing.
Just an interesting observation. Not sure why hams get more concerned about it than others.
Shoot, this was off the topic myself.
73s John AA5JG
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Schaefer [email protected]wrote:
Just a relatively new subscriber question…is this group always so off topic? I understand the source of this post but after a few emails it is clearly nowhere near the original posters comments on why he thinks he can use a satellite versus a cell phone. I have also witnessed many posts that rapidly get into all sorts of things far afield of satellite related things. I have subscribed to many lists and there is usually someone that herds the cats to stay on topic. That seems to be missing here.
Of course, I realize I am welcome to unsubscribe but I do appreciate the nuggets of information actually related to satellites. Maybe I could respectfully suggest that a post like this last one that has devolved to having nothing to do with amateur satellites should have its subject changed to OT:Cell Towers so we all know to ignore the thing.
Thanks,
Tom NY4I
On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Dee wrote:
I meant when the towers fall-antennas and everything.. Power was NOT the problem on 9/11.. Good luck up North... Dee
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gordon JC Pearce Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: FM satellites
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:05:00 -0400 Jim Wright [email protected] wrote:
When the towers are damaged or the power fails to the cell site, cell phones don't even make good boat anchors.
If the power fails to the cell site, it shouldn't make a difference. They're supposed to have 48 hours of battery backup.
Up here at 58°N most cell sites cover a huge area and have no mains
power,
so they run on a diesel genny that gets filled up once a week or so.
Gordon MM0YEQ
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Dave,
I'm not about to convert you to the FM satellites, you were very fortunate to operate during the halcyon period for amateur satellites. However, we want to keep amateur satellites in space, and we must deal with the current economic situation. It is a thrill for me to teach someone how to operate thru an FM satellite with an HT in their yard and experience that excitement thru them.
Dave, I can understand your position on how easy it is for you to operate an FM satellite, it may be that you have an Oscar station which would make it "boring" and too easy for you.
Here is a challenge, Tim Lilley, N3TL earned the Oscar Satellite Communications award using only 50 mW and a hand held antenna for all his contacts, give it a try and report back how "easy" that is to accomplish.
73's Pete WB2OQQ www.massapequanyweather.com
You can't get a VUCC or WAS award for cell phone calls.
73s John AA5JG
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Guimont" [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 6:15 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] FM satellites
I've worked every ham satellite that has been launched since I got on Oscar 7, cw, most of my gear at that time home brew in 1980.
For the life of me I cannot see any difference in pushing a button on an FM bird than operating a cell phone, except that it is a 2 user operation and the time available is limited...
Waste of good AMSAT funds......skill level 1, on a 1 to 10 basis...
73, Dave, WB6LLO [email protected] Disagree: I learn.... Pulling for P3E...
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
participants (17)
-
Alexander Sack -
Bob Bruninga -
Dave Guimont -
Dee -
George Henry -
Gordon JC Pearce -
Gregg Wonderly -
Gregg Wonderly -
i8cvs -
Jim Wright -
John Geiger -
John Ronan -
Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK) -
Peter Portanova -
R Oler -
rnutter＠networkref.com -
Thomas Schaefer