This is intended to be an honest question that I've wanted to ask, but I don't want to spark controversy or long threads that monopolize the reflector. I have a feeling this could go either way, so I'm just asking politely that the thread not go that way! It's not my intent.
Anyway, I'm just curious why it seems that every new satellite project proposed seems to be bigger and more complex than the last? I keep hearing about exotic modes and uplink/downlink bands for P3E.. software defined transceivers, etc. etc. and what it looks like to me are more and more failure points. I understand the need to push the limits of technology as a justification for our very existence, but personally I feel like the designs are overly complicated and highly priced. I'm not ready to switch my earth station to SDRs, for instance.. I'm dubious about putting one into orbit.. then again, I'm not skilled enough to make those sorts of decisions.
What I'm getting at is that Oscar 7 proved how reliable older technology can be.. For the price of one of the phase 3 birds it seems like several Mode B linear transponder sats could be put up, or a few more FM sats. I personally would much rather see a modest mode B sat in AO-40s intended orbital pattern than to try to wrangle parts for microwave.
Did it get too easy for people or something?
Wouldn't it be better to separate out some of the more experimental stuff from the old standbys? That way a failure of one whole sat would still leave something usable for the same money spent. My vote would be to piggyback a completely independent analog satellite onto P3E "just in case".
Like I said, please, I'm looking for a real, thought out response.. I didn't write the above to be a critque or to troll or anything like that, I am just curious because it seems to me, as an outside observer, that after the failure of AO-40 the direction was to go bigger and even more complicated, which left me cold considering what I had done at my station to work AO-40. Even when AO-40 was up I felt it was very odd that time and money were spent on components and systems that were never used (did the solar panels ever deploy?) Yes, I know the sat was damaged, and that explains a good bit of it, but it still felt like some things were wasted. Emphasis on "felt".. I couldn't know the real process that resulted in the decisions made.
If someone could help me understand why the direction is the way it is maybe I could get excited about the bigger sats, but I think you get more "bang for the buck" with the smaller less complicated birds. My favorite so far is PCSat I. Mostly off the shelf hardware and I had a very easy time digipeating APRS through it. One of those in an elliptical orbit would be a hoot!
73s,
Jason - N1XBP
P.S. - One last plea, this isn't a troll! I'm worried people will think it is.
On 19 Sep 2006 at 10:48, Jason White wrote:
which left me cold considering what I had done at my station to work AO-40. Even when AO-40 was up I felt it was very odd that time and money were spent on components and systems that were never used>
Hi Jason
You and many other are saying this in a same voice but AMSAT-NA and their sats builders does not hear/listen their own membership. They ask for money.money and money period. And they are doing what it is the best for the rest of the uneducated, unscientific crowd.
For me any opinions count and there is no question about a troll when peoples just express freely themselves.
I share, we share your thoughts while some want to attract new members with a disguise toll satellite fee for AO-51.
Just a note for the sake of clarity P3E is the next logical satellite to be launched and its where all your support should go. There is no political intent here just a plain logic (who is not present enough actually). P3E will have an S mode downlink and you will be able to use your former AO-40 setup.
"-" The medium is the message...The content is the audience...;)
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE WAC basic,CW,Phone,Satellite Skype VE2DWE www.qsl.net/ve2dwe
Jason White expunged ([email protected]):
Anyway, I'm just curious why it seems that every new satellite project proposed seems to be bigger and more complex than the last? I keep hearing about exotic modes and uplink/downlink bands for P3E.. software defined transceivers, etc. etc. and what it looks like to me are more and more failure points. I understand the need to push the limits of technology as a justification for our very existence, but personally I feel like the designs are overly complicated and highly priced. I'm not ready to switch my earth station to SDRs, for instance.. I'm dubious about putting one into orbit.. then again, I'm not skilled enough to make those sorts of decisions.
A minor note of clarification, the Software Defined Transponder (SDX) does not require groundstations to run SDRs. It's a new method to implement the traditional linear transponder design in software.
Now, as for the bigger/better issue, I'll make some observations:
- P3E is purpose built as a technology testing platform for a very specific Mars mission, I don't see it as all bells and whistles. (bigger better for the sake of bigger better)
- The Eagle design, as it's turning out, *seems* to be much less complicated than a AO-40 or P3E, at least in the number of bands and functions.
Then there are the basics, like FCC Part 97 rules:
Specifically...
§97.1 Basis and purpose.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.
What I'm getting at is that Oscar 7 proved how reliable older technology can be.. For the price of one of the phase 3 birds it seems like several Mode B linear transponder sats could be put up, or a few more FM sats. I personally would much rather see a modest mode B sat in AO-40s intended orbital pattern than to try to wrangle parts for microwave.
I've talked about this before, but it's important to remember that AMSAT is not a serivce provider. We don't exist to provide a continual supply of mode X transponders in Y orbit. We're here to advance the state of the art, IMHO.
(of course, I still hold the right to throw a temper tantrum over mode S downlinks)
Wouldn't it be better to separate out some of the more experimental stuff from the old standbys? That way a failure of one whole sat would still leave something usable for the same money spent. My vote would be to piggyback a completely independent analog satellite onto P3E "just in case".
If you want to build an "old standby" sat, go for it!
The people who are actively building sats aren't interested in that. I don't blame them either. But remember, AMSAT isn't stopping ANYONE from putting a team together to build a new sat.
If someone could help me understand why the direction is the way it is maybe I could get excited about the bigger sats, but I think you get more "bang for the buck" with the smaller less complicated birds. My favorite so far is PCSat I. Mostly off the shelf hardware and I had a very easy time digipeating APRS through it. One of those in an elliptical orbit would be a hoot!
Of course, you would likely need a more robust equipment set to work HEO :) It's a give and take, there isn't a perfect solution.
-Steve N1JFU
The purpose of the SDX is to make the analog transponder better. In the past, the loudest signal controlled the downlink level and could hog the transponder. SDX allows each uplink signal to be isolated and levels adjusted to more equally share the downlink. The cost of the satellite is proportional to the power consumed by the transmitters so the less efficient the transmitter, the weaker the downlink. SDX also allows more efficent implementation of a downlink transmitter.
One reason for implementing new bands and new modes is to reduce antenna size and allow more people to use the satellite. People in CC&R-restricted properties have to negotiate with the homeowner's association to allow antennas and the smaller the antenna, the better. For example, in LA in the 1990s you had a choice of a condominium with restrictions forbidding any external antennas and any transmitting antennas (and lots of other stuff) for $200,000-300,000 or a house with no restrictions for $400,000-800,000.
When P3A was designed in the late 1970's, U/V was the only practical mode. L/S was implemented later to reduce antenna size as ambient noise levels are lower in the microwave bands. It does this, but WiFi was invented afterwards and eliminates the advantage in many locations. The purpose of digital voice is to reduce the required received signal level. When combined with a downlink in a WiFi-less microwave band, antenna size could be reduced to the minimum.
AO-40 was an anomoly due to the fact that AMSAT-DL was offered a large space on a rocket for little money. They rushed to fill the space. P3A, AO-10, AO-13, P3E and Eagle are all smaller and about the same size.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Meuse" [email protected] To: "Jason White" [email protected] Cc: "Amsat BB" [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 17:38 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do the amsats get more and more complex?
Jason White expunged ([email protected]):
Anyway, I'm just curious why it seems that every new satellite project proposed seems to be bigger and more complex than the last? I keep hearing about exotic modes and uplink/downlink bands for P3E.. software defined transceivers, etc. etc. and what it looks like to me are more and more failure points. I understand the need to push the limits of technology as a justification for our very existence, but personally I feel like the designs are overly complicated and highly priced. I'm not ready to switch my earth station to SDRs, for instance.. I'm dubious about putting one into orbit.. then again, I'm not skilled enough to make those sorts of decisions.
A minor note of clarification, the Software Defined Transponder (SDX) does not require groundstations to run SDRs. It's a new method to implement the traditional linear transponder design in software.
Now, as for the bigger/better issue, I'll make some observations:
- P3E is purpose built as a technology testing platform for a very specific Mars mission, I don't see it as all bells and whistles. (bigger better for the sake of bigger better)
- The Eagle design, as it's turning out, *seems* to be much less complicated than a AO-40 or P3E, at least in the number of bands and functions.
Then there are the basics, like FCC Part 97 rules:
Specifically...
§97.1 Basis and purpose.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.
What I'm getting at is that Oscar 7 proved how reliable older technology can be.. For the price of one of the phase 3 birds it seems like several Mode B linear transponder sats could be put up, or a few more FM sats. I personally would much rather see a modest mode B sat in AO-40s intended orbital pattern than to try to wrangle parts for microwave.
I've talked about this before, but it's important to remember that AMSAT is not a serivce provider. We don't exist to provide a continual supply of mode X transponders in Y orbit. We're here to advance the state of the art, IMHO.
(of course, I still hold the right to throw a temper tantrum over mode S downlinks)
Wouldn't it be better to separate out some of the more experimental stuff from the old standbys? That way a failure of one whole sat would still leave something usable for the same money spent. My vote would be to piggyback a completely independent analog satellite onto P3E "just in case".
If you want to build an "old standby" sat, go for it!
The people who are actively building sats aren't interested in that. I don't blame them either. But remember, AMSAT isn't stopping ANYONE from putting a team together to build a new sat.
If someone could help me understand why the direction is the way it is maybe I could get excited about the bigger sats, but I think you get more "bang for the buck" with the smaller less complicated birds. My favorite so far is PCSat I. Mostly off the shelf hardware and I had a very easy time digipeating APRS through it. One of those in an elliptical orbit would be a hoot!
Of course, you would likely need a more robust equipment set to work HEO :) It's a give and take, there isn't a perfect solution.
-Steve N1JFU
_______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
|New tech is great, |but one line of thought is to keep most of the |high tech stuff on the ground and keep the |satellite relatively simple and reliable. |Just a thought. Bob
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Meuse Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:39 PM To: Jason White Cc: Amsat BB Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do the amsats get more and more
complex?
Jason White expunged ([email protected]):
Anyway, I'm just curious why it seems that every new
satellite project
proposed seems to be bigger and more complex than the last?
I keep
hearing about exotic modes and uplink/downlink bands for
P3E.. software
defined transceivers, etc. etc. and what it looks like to
me are more
and more failure points. I understand the need to push the
limits of
technology as a justification for our very existence, but
personally I
feel like the designs are overly complicated and highly
priced. I'm not
ready to switch my earth station to SDRs, for instance..
I'm dubious
about putting one into orbit.. then again, I'm not skilled
enough to
make those sorts of decisions.
A minor note of clarification, the Software Defined Transponder (SDX) does not require groundstations to run SDRs. It's a new method to implement the traditional linear transponder design in software.
Now, as for the bigger/better issue, I'll make some
observations:
- P3E is purpose built as a technology testing platform for a
very specific Mars mission, I don't see it as all bells and whistles. (bigger better for the sake of bigger better)
- The Eagle design, as it's turning out, *seems* to be much
less complicated than a AO-40 or P3E, at least in the number of bands and functions.
Then there are the basics, like FCC Part 97 rules:
Specifically...
§97.1 Basis and purpose.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.
What I'm getting at is that Oscar 7 proved how reliable
older technology
can be.. For the price of one of the phase 3 birds it
seems like
several Mode B linear transponder sats could be put up, or
a few more FM
sats. I personally would much rather see a modest mode B
sat in AO-40s
intended orbital pattern than to try to wrangle parts for
microwave.
I've talked about this before, but it's important to remember that AMSAT is not a serivce provider. We don't exist to provide a continual supply of mode X transponders in Y orbit. We're here to advance the state of the art, IMHO.
(of course, I still hold the right to throw a temper tantrum over mode S downlinks)
Wouldn't it be better to separate out some of the more
experimental
stuff from the old standbys? That way a failure of one
whole sat would
still leave something usable for the same money spent. My
vote would be
to piggyback a completely independent analog satellite onto
P3E "just in
case".
If you want to build an "old standby" sat, go for it!
The people who are actively building sats aren't interested in that. I don't blame them either. But remember, AMSAT isn't stopping ANYONE from putting a team together to build a new
sat.
If someone could help me understand why the direction is
the way it is
maybe I could get excited about the bigger sats, but I
think you get
more "bang for the buck" with the smaller less complicated
birds. My
favorite so far is PCSat I. Mostly off the shelf hardware
and I had a
very easy time digipeating APRS through it. One of those in
an
elliptical orbit would be a hoot!
Of course, you would likely need a more robust equipment set to work HEO :) It's a give and take, there isn't a perfect
solution.
-Steve N1JFU
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:
Interesting to note, our local repeater doesn't see the need to continually push the envelope, yet when we put one on a spacecraft, we seem to need the latest technology, not always available to the ham that just wants to go out in the backyard and operate without having to spend umpteen dollars to build up a station. Like the guy working HF with a simple transceiver and a vertical, some of us just want to operate and don't have the time/interest/money to spend building the station it requires to work some of the more exotic modes. I haven't seen any L band radios in my price range and S band seems to have lost interest (even though I'm told it was pretty simple to get on to)
My $.02 as a new operator.
73 de Tim, K4SHF FM04
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason White Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 10:49 AM To: Amsat BB Subject: [amsat-bb] Why do the amsats get more and more complex?
This is intended to be an honest question that I've wanted to ask, but I don't want to spark controversy or long threads that monopolize the reflector. I have a feeling this could go either way, so I'm just asking politely that the thread not go that way! It's not my intent.
Anyway, I'm just curious why it seems that every new satellite project proposed seems to be bigger and more complex than the last? I keep hearing about exotic modes and uplink/downlink bands for P3E.. software defined transceivers, etc. etc. and what it looks like to me are more and more failure points. I understand the need to push the limits of technology as a justification for our very existence, but personally I feel like the designs are overly complicated and highly priced. I'm not ready to switch my earth station to SDRs, for instance.. I'm dubious about putting one into orbit.. then again, I'm not skilled enough to make those sorts of decisions.
What I'm getting at is that Oscar 7 proved how reliable older technology can be.. For the price of one of the phase 3 birds it seems like several Mode B linear transponder sats could be put up, or a few more FM sats. I personally would much rather see a modest mode B sat in AO-40s intended orbital pattern than to try to wrangle parts for microwave.
Did it get too easy for people or something?
Wouldn't it be better to separate out some of the more experimental stuff from the old standbys? That way a failure of one whole sat would still leave something usable for the same money spent. My vote would be to piggyback a completely independent analog satellite onto P3E "just in case".
Like I said, please, I'm looking for a real, thought out response.. I didn't write the above to be a critque or to troll or anything like that, I am just curious because it seems to me, as an outside observer, that after the failure of AO-40 the direction was to go bigger and even more complicated, which left me cold considering what I had done at my station to work AO-40. Even when AO-40 was up I felt it was very odd that time and money were spent on components and systems that were never used (did the solar panels ever deploy?) Yes, I know the sat was damaged, and that explains a good bit of it, but it still felt like some things were wasted. Emphasis on "felt".. I couldn't know the real process that resulted in the decisions made.
If someone could help me understand why the direction is the way it is maybe I could get excited about the bigger sats, but I think you get more "bang for the buck" with the smaller less complicated birds. My favorite so far is PCSat I. Mostly off the shelf hardware and I had a very easy time digipeating APRS through it. One of those in an elliptical orbit would be a hoot!
73s,
Jason - N1XBP
P.S. - One last plea, this isn't a troll! I'm worried people will think it is.
_______________________________________________ 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
While your local repeater has not seen the need for using newer advancements, others now have transistors, Phone patches, Microcomputer controllers, Voice mailboxes, IRLP and/or EchoLink access, RF backbones for linking, remote bases ...
I understand keeping what works but that does not mean that we should not explore new possibilities at the same time.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Tapio Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:59 PM To: 'Jason White'; 'Amsat BB' Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do the amsats get more and more complex?
Interesting to note, our local repeater doesn't see the need to continually push the envelope, yet when we put one on a spacecraft, we seem to need the latest technology, not always available to the ham that just wants to go out in the backyard and operate without having to spend umpteen dollars to build up a station. Like the guy working HF with a simple transceiver and a vertical, some of us just want to operate and don't have the time/interest/money to spend building the station it requires to work some of the more exotic modes. I haven't seen any L band radios in my price range and S band seems to have lost interest (even though I'm told it was pretty simple to get on to)
My $.02 as a new operator.
73 de Tim, K4SHF FM04
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason White Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 10:49 AM To: Amsat BB Subject: [amsat-bb] Why do the amsats get more and more complex?
This is intended to be an honest question that I've wanted to ask, but I don't want to spark controversy or long threads that monopolize the reflector. I have a feeling this could go either way, so I'm just asking politely that the thread not go that way! It's not my intent.
Anyway, I'm just curious why it seems that every new satellite project proposed seems to be bigger and more complex than the last? I keep hearing about exotic modes and uplink/downlink bands for P3E.. software defined transceivers, etc. etc. and what it looks like to me are more and more failure points. I understand the need to push the limits of technology as a justification for our very existence, but personally I feel like the designs are overly complicated and highly priced. I'm not ready to switch my earth station to SDRs, for instance.. I'm dubious about putting one into orbit.. then again, I'm not skilled enough to make those sorts of decisions.
What I'm getting at is that Oscar 7 proved how reliable older technology can be.. For the price of one of the phase 3 birds it seems like several Mode B linear transponder sats could be put up, or a few more FM sats. I personally would much rather see a modest mode B sat in AO-40s intended orbital pattern than to try to wrangle parts for microwave.
Did it get too easy for people or something?
Wouldn't it be better to separate out some of the more experimental stuff from the old standbys? That way a failure of one whole sat would still leave something usable for the same money spent. My vote would be to piggyback a completely independent analog satellite onto P3E "just in case".
Like I said, please, I'm looking for a real, thought out response.. I didn't write the above to be a critque or to troll or anything like that, I am just curious because it seems to me, as an outside observer, that after the failure of AO-40 the direction was to go bigger and even more complicated, which left me cold considering what I had done at my station to work AO-40. Even when AO-40 was up I felt it was very odd that time and money were spent on components and systems that were never used (did the solar panels ever deploy?) Yes, I know the sat was damaged, and that explains a good bit of it, but it still felt like some things were wasted. Emphasis on "felt".. I couldn't know the real process that resulted in the decisions made.
If someone could help me understand why the direction is the way it is maybe I could get excited about the bigger sats, but I think you get more "bang for the buck" with the smaller less complicated birds. My favorite so far is PCSat I. Mostly off the shelf hardware and I had a very easy time digipeating APRS through it. One of those in an elliptical orbit would be a hoot!
73s,
Jason - N1XBP
P.S. - One last plea, this isn't a troll! I'm worried people will think it is.
_______________________________________________ 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
You've forgotten D-Star digital voice and data repeaters.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR]" [email protected] To: "Tim Tapio" [email protected]; "Jason White" [email protected]; "Amsat BB" [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 19:52 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do the amsats get more and more complex?
While your local repeater has not seen the need for using newer advancements, others now have transistors, Phone patches, Microcomputer controllers, Voice mailboxes, IRLP and/or EchoLink access, RF backbones for linking, remote bases ...
I understand keeping what works but that does not mean that we should not explore new possibilities at the same time.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Tapio Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:59 PM To: 'Jason White'; 'Amsat BB' Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do the amsats get more and more complex?
Interesting to note, our local repeater doesn't see the need to continually push the envelope, yet when we put one on a spacecraft, we seem to need the latest technology, not always available to the ham that just wants to go out in the backyard and operate without having to spend umpteen dollars to build up a station. Like the guy working HF with a simple transceiver and a vertical, some of us just want to operate and don't have the time/interest/money to spend building the station it requires to work some of the more exotic modes. I haven't seen any L band radios in my price range and S band seems to have lost interest (even though I'm told it was pretty simple to get on to)
My $.02 as a new operator.
73 de Tim, K4SHF FM04
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason White Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 10:49 AM To: Amsat BB Subject: [amsat-bb] Why do the amsats get more and more complex?
This is intended to be an honest question that I've wanted to ask, but I don't want to spark controversy or long threads that monopolize the reflector. I have a feeling this could go either way, so I'm just asking politely that the thread not go that way! It's not my intent.
Anyway, I'm just curious why it seems that every new satellite project proposed seems to be bigger and more complex than the last? I keep hearing about exotic modes and uplink/downlink bands for P3E.. software defined transceivers, etc. etc. and what it looks like to me are more and more failure points. I understand the need to push the limits of technology as a justification for our very existence, but personally I feel like the designs are overly complicated and highly priced. I'm not ready to switch my earth station to SDRs, for instance.. I'm dubious about putting one into orbit.. then again, I'm not skilled enough to make those sorts of decisions.
What I'm getting at is that Oscar 7 proved how reliable older technology can be.. For the price of one of the phase 3 birds it seems like several Mode B linear transponder sats could be put up, or a few more FM sats. I personally would much rather see a modest mode B sat in AO-40s intended orbital pattern than to try to wrangle parts for microwave.
Did it get too easy for people or something?
Wouldn't it be better to separate out some of the more experimental stuff from the old standbys? That way a failure of one whole sat would still leave something usable for the same money spent. My vote would be to piggyback a completely independent analog satellite onto P3E "just in case".
Like I said, please, I'm looking for a real, thought out response.. I didn't write the above to be a critque or to troll or anything like that, I am just curious because it seems to me, as an outside observer, that after the failure of AO-40 the direction was to go bigger and even more complicated, which left me cold considering what I had done at my station to work AO-40. Even when AO-40 was up I felt it was very odd that time and money were spent on components and systems that were never used (did the solar panels ever deploy?) Yes, I know the sat was damaged, and that explains a good bit of it, but it still felt like some things were wasted. Emphasis on "felt".. I couldn't know the real process that resulted in the decisions made.
If someone could help me understand why the direction is the way it is maybe I could get excited about the bigger sats, but I think you get more "bang for the buck" with the smaller less complicated birds. My favorite so far is PCSat I. Mostly off the shelf hardware and I had a very easy time digipeating APRS through it. One of those in an elliptical orbit would be a hoot!
73s,
Jason - N1XBP
P.S. - One last plea, this isn't a troll! I'm worried people will think it is.
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
Tim Tapio expunged ([email protected]):
Interesting to note, our local repeater doesn't see the need to continually push the envelope, yet when we put one on a spacecraft, we seem to need the latest technology, not always available to the ham that just wants to go out in the backyard and operate without having to spend umpteen dollars to build up a station.
This is a classic argument. Let's step into a time machine for a moment...
"Phone? AM Phone? Who needs that fancy technology, CW is more than enough!" -CW op
"Single Sideband? Hogwash! AM does more than enough for me!" -AM op
"Digital voice? Who needs it! My 2.4khz wide SSB signal is fine!!" -SSB op
"PSK31? That's not real ham radio!! I want to talk in my QSO!!" -Most cranky old timers
Like the guy working HF with a simple transceiver and a vertical, some of us just want to operate and don't have the time/interest/money to spend building the station it requires to work some of the more exotic modes. I haven't seen any L band radios in my price range and S band seems to have lost interest (even though I'm told it was pretty simple to get on to)
My $.02 as a new operator.
You get out what you put into the hobby. That is a universal truth in life, IMHO.
-Steve N1JFU
Steve
" This is a classic argument. Let's step into a time machine for a moment..."
here is the problem with your point. I agree that technical advancement is important...but to have technical advancement for no real purpose isnt.
Unlike most of the modes you mention, amateur satellite communications has really "not" caught on in the amateur community.
A main reason is that there is not a dependable reliable source of high altitude (or even low altitude) satellites that are the essential part(perhaps the ultimate part) of the equation.
Imagine if there were the same number of amateur FM repeaters as their are linear transponders on amateur radio satellites.
Do you think we would have gotten much past tube strip line radios?
I dont.
Robert Oler WB5MZO/5
My Prog Line works just fine thank you and 6BH6's are a dime a dozen...plus...less worry about EMP....did anyone else see the Gonset Gooney Box amplifier in this week's "Jerico?" I know I'm o/t...I'll go back into my hole....
Roger WA1KAT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Oler" [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 10:52 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do the amsats get more and more complex?
Steve
" This is a classic argument. Let's step into a time machine for a
moment..."
here is the problem with your point. I agree that technical advancement
is
important...but to have technical advancement for no real purpose isnt.
Unlike most of the modes you mention, amateur satellite communications has really "not" caught on in the amateur community.
A main reason is that there is not a dependable reliable source of high altitude (or even low altitude) satellites that are the essential part(perhaps the ultimate part) of the equation.
Imagine if there were the same number of amateur FM repeaters as their are linear transponders on amateur radio satellites.
Do you think we would have gotten much past tube strip line radios?
I dont.
Robert Oler WB5MZO/5
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
Jason, as a Amsat-NA President once told me, the builders do not get a "wow" out of building the same old thing, they want something bleeding edge and new to pique their interest.
I believe this to be a true statement from him, and to a end, that is why the designers call the majority of the shots,they are the ones that are going to build it and it requires a much higher level of knowledge than the average ham , so they are one of the few games in town and they are only going to pick projects that interest them.
This is also why I think you will not find layouts and schematics for previous xponders anywhere to be found.
If you did find schematics then even though a person is not technical enough to "design" one they might be skilled enough to "build" one and end the grip that the designers have over Amsat.
So for the foreseeable future the designers will call the shots and we users will be required to foot the bills.
I completely agree with you that a better course would be to build a Sat that is 2/3's old proven tech that has been refined to "built like a tank or a DC-3" status and with the last 1/3 the designers play ground.
Since over and over we are told how hard to get and costly a launch is (which I believe completely) then I would rather have time tested proven hardware that has a better chance of being around for a long time.
But this is just my ramblings...
73 Kevin WA6FWF Amsat-UK #6505
SNIP!
Wouldn't it be better to separate out some of the more experimental stuff from the old standbys? That way a failure of one whole sat would still leave something usable for the same money spent. > 73s,
Jason - N1XBP
There are schematics for Eagle posted in the EaglePedia portion of the AMSAT-NA web site.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "wa6fwf" [email protected] To: "Amsat BB" [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 19:17 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do the amsats get more and more complex?
Jason, as a Amsat-NA President once told me, the builders do not get a "wow" out of building the same old thing, they want something bleeding edge and new to pique their interest.
I believe this to be a true statement from him, and to a end, that is why the designers call the majority of the shots,they are the ones that are going to build it and it requires a much higher level of knowledge than the average ham , so they are one of the few games in town and they are only going to pick projects that interest them.
This is also why I think you will not find layouts and schematics for previous xponders anywhere to be found.
If you did find schematics then even though a person is not technical enough to "design" one they might be skilled enough to "build" one and end the grip that the designers have over Amsat.
So for the foreseeable future the designers will call the shots and we users will be required to foot the bills.
I completely agree with you that a better course would be to build a Sat that is 2/3's old proven tech that has been refined to "built like a tank or a DC-3" status and with the last 1/3 the designers play ground.
Since over and over we are told how hard to get and costly a launch is (which I believe completely) then I would rather have time tested proven hardware that has a better chance of being around for a long time.
But this is just my ramblings...
73 Kevin WA6FWF Amsat-UK #6505
SNIP!
Wouldn't it be better to separate out some of the more experimental stuff from the old standbys? That way a failure of one whole sat would still leave something usable for the same money spent. > 73s,
Jason - N1XBP
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 (10)
-
Jason White -
John B. Stephensen -
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE -
Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] -
Robert Bruninga -
Robert Oler -
Roger Kolakowski -
Steve Meuse -
Tim Tapio -
wa6fwf