I'll limit my comments to two issues:
Ham radio is about communicating. If we want to turn its primary task into "education" then it will look very very different.
Part 97.1 tells us what the intended (not always realized, it must be said) purpose of amateur radio is. it certainly is intended to be a communication service, but the regulations also recognize the importance of education in Part 97.1(c):
(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.
Education (particularly self-education) has always been a principle of amateur radio. Indeed, from 97.3(a)(4), the definition of amateur service:
(4) Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.
It does list "intercommunication", but it also lists "self-training" and "technical investigations", which certainly have a clear educational mandate. I admit that most hams don't seem to take this educational mandate very seriously, but it is there, and I applaud AMSAT in their educational efforts. In the grand scheme of things, I think having school kids talk to astronauts in orbit probably does more social good than allowing hams work DX.
Secondly, regarding the chances of success of ARISS-Sat-1, first, I hope you are wrong. I hope it is successful, and that the SDX transponder provides some unique opportunities for radio amateurs. As to whether flying such a payload is a reasonable use of this rare launch opportunity, I think it clearly is. Yes, we could kick a very basic linear transponder out of the ISS, and it would float around in LEO and allow you to make some contacts, but so what? What purpose would be served? To get to _affordable_ amateur satellites, we have to find a way to actually pay for launches. This means (among other things) limiting mass, and that means relying on the benefits that digital control can in controlling and minimizing power consumption. You can't just run a bent pipe transponder on a 1U cubesat and expect anything useful to develop. We need to think
Robert also mentioned the decreasing satellite population. It isn't decreasing because satellites are becoming more expensive: indeed, as Bob Bruninga has pointed out, the actual hardware costs of satellites have fallen dramatically. The problem is that we can't get people to donate free launches to get our stuff into orbit. AO-10 had a mass of about 90kg. Arianspace wants 1.8 million euros to launch that into HEO orbit. The cost of the development and construction of the satellite is just the smallest fraction of that cost. To make satellite launches affordable, we need to figure out new ways to shrink the mass, provide careful power control, and either accept lower orbits or figure out new ways to boost satellites to higher orbits (I find the micropropulsion work to be very interesting).
It's a pity we can't harness the power of complaining to boost things to orbit...
73 Mark K6HX
Mark, You hit the nail on the head right there! 73, Michael, W4HIJ Mark VandeWettering wrote
It's a pity we can't harness the power of complaining to boost things to orbit...
73 Mark K6HX _______________________________________________ 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 - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2441 - Release Date: 10/16/09 18:39:00
Mark
the two points you raise are interesting
Education...you wrote in part "
.
It does list "intercommunication", but it also lists "self-training" and "technical investigations", which certainly have a clear educational mandate.
you can interpret that anyway you want to...but I dont see a mandate there to do "general education"...but even if there was one...
it is bogus to say "this project failed in its main goal but was a success because it did education". Put another way...the recent "crash on the Moon and find water".
Would you really buy that the 80 million dollars spent was well spent if the effort did not answer the basic scientific questions it was designed to do (and we dont know if it did or did not but it probably didnt)...if it "did good education" (my words).
I dont.
If the 80 million was going to do education, it should have been spent on that...and there are ways to do it. If something has a primary goal and that primary goal improves education then thats great...but when the primary goal fails...it is a stretch of massive proportions to say "well it was a success because it educated people".
I dont know how the "education" thing got into ham radio, but I imagine it is one of the virus that we got when we started interfacing with NASA for ham radio. There is no justification for human spaceflight (and I am not the only one that thinks that...the Augustine Commission agrees there is not) so NASA and its groupies try everything to justify it including "education".
Yes, we could kick a very
basic linear transponder out of the ISS, and it would float around in LEO and allow you to make some contacts, but so what? What purpose would be served?
A great deal. It would allow communications and experimentation and self teaching in ham radio which is the essence of the hobby.
I'll turn it around. What purpose is going to be served by another flop like Suitsat 1?
I hope I am wrong about the failure rate but probably not. We will see...Suitsat2 is definatly going the way it is.
Robert WB5MZO
_________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:29:16PM -0500, Rocky Jones wrote:
Mark
the two points you raise are interesting
Education...you wrote in part "
"Yes, my new car failed to work so I had the local high school auto class work on it. It was quite an educational experience for them! They learned a lot! I never did get to use it, but it sure was educational!"
That is not what I would call a success. It is indeed true that when something goes wrong in space, we have to grin and bear it, turning lemons into lemonade. etc. But to redefine what a success is, simply to put a positive spin on a failure, is counterproductive. It seems to me that the problems are acknowledged and are worked upon, makes more sense.
I do not see the arguments for "It was a success because of its educational value" or "We are incompetent because it was a failure" to be of much long term use either.
I do see admitting mistakes were made and fixing them, everyone else out of the way, to be much more productive.
Yes, we could kick a very
basic linear transponder out of the ISS, and it would float around in LEO and allow you to make some contacts, but so what? What purpose would be served?
A great deal. It would allow communications and experimentation and self teaching in ham radio which is the essence of the hobby.
I would agree. Why not be able to do both?
...
Robert WB5MZO
- 73 Diane VA3DB -- - db@db.net http://www.db.net/~db
Diane. I concur in you're comments particularly that failure is not alone an indicator of incompetence. (my words but hopefully it is fair to you're thought)
What in engineering (and in life) signals incompetence is moving outside of established engineering design parameters. Hence if one has a specification that no foam comes off the tank and yet foam comes off the tank on every flight...then dont be surprised when a big one comes off and ruins your vehicle.
( a modest summation of the Columbia accident investigation board).
It is in my view not competent engineering to fly a payload, where the first one failed and it was several orders of magnitude less complex then what one is trying to fly now...and one has really no idea of why it failed.
How is the later important?
A prudent guess (and that is all it is) is that Suitsat 1 failed because someone on the space station put the darn thing together wrong. or the assembly instructions were wrong or...
If it worked on the ground and in the various test chambers then that is one prudent method of investigation (AMSAT may know this already and just cannot say it out loud because the mythic heroes on orbit never make mistakes!) But before launching a far more complicated payload one might want to find that out (the satellite might help them here if there is not a lot of assembly to do on the station).
But a software derived transponder is not simple and if the thing fails...most likely no one will know why. Was it some astronaut missed one of those switches or is the entire program screwed? What to do with cubesat then?
AMSAT's role should be as far as possible to keep the membership supplied with functioning satellites. It is not the ham equivelent of DARPA or whatever. If the role is not to keep hamsats in orbit, then what does it do
Robert WB5MZO _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
Digital signal processing is 40 year old technology at DARPA and first appeared on the amateur radio scene 20 years ago. We certainly don't want AMSAT to ignore this technology as it can reduce hardware complexity, size and power requirements and therefore decrease costs and increase reliability.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rocky Jones" orbitjet@hotmail.com To: db@db.net Cc: "Amsat BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org; k6hx@arrl.net Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 15:47 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do hamsats? (Or anything else...)
But a software derived transponder is not simple and if the thing fails...most likely no one will know why. Was it some astronaut missed one of those switches or is the entire program screwed? What to do with cubesat then?
AMSAT's role should be as far as possible to keep the membership supplied with functioning satellites. It is not the ham equivelent of DARPA or whatever. If the role is not to keep hamsats in orbit, then what does it do
From: kd6ozh@comcast.net To: orbitjet@hotmail.com; db@db.net CC: amsat-bb@amsat.org; k6hx@arrl.net Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do hamsats? (Or anything else...) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:16:03 +0000
Digital signal processing is 40 year old technology at DARPA and first appeared on the amateur radio scene 20 years ago. We certainly don't want AMSAT to ignore this technology as it can reduce hardware complexity, size and power requirements and therefore decrease costs and increase reliability.
73,
John KD6OZH
John. I would not suggest to ignore it. But AMSAT is not DARPA and cannot in my view afford to fly technology just for technologies sake
Robert WB5MZO
_________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
But 19k2 RF 100 mW modules are $60
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rocky Jones" orbitjet@hotmail.com To: kd6ozh@comcast.net; db@db.net Cc: "Amsat BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org; k6hx@arrl.net Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 11:28 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do hamsats? (Or anything else...)
From: kd6ozh@comcast.net To: orbitjet@hotmail.com; db@db.net CC: amsat-bb@amsat.org; k6hx@arrl.net Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do hamsats? (Or anything else...) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:16:03 +0000
Digital signal processing is 40 year old technology at DARPA and first appeared on the amateur radio scene 20 years ago. We certainly don't want AMSAT to ignore this technology as it can reduce hardware complexity, size and power requirements and therefore decrease costs and increase reliability.
73,
John KD6OZH
John. I would not suggest to ignore it. But AMSAT is not DARPA and cannot in my view afford to fly technology just for technologies sake
Robert WB5MZO
_________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ 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 - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2443 - Release Date: 10/17/09 13:08:00
John. I would not suggest to ignore it. But AMSAT is not DARPA and cannot in my view afford to fly technology just for technologies sake
Robert WB5MZO
There are all sorts of reasons why flying digital transponders is a good idea. Your cell phone (presuming you have one) uses digital technology to improve battery life, range, and to provide a variety of other services, including digital data, and the same benefits could be harnessed aboard amateur satellites. The desire to do so isn't just for technology's sake: it is to enable a wide variety of new capabilities that can't be achieved with conventional analog systems.
I understand the desire for being "conservative", but there is a different from being conservative and simply ignoring the revolutionary trends in communication that are enabling revolutions in phone, data and voip services.
73 Mark K6HX
There are all sorts of reasons why flying digital transponders is a good idea. Your cell phone (presuming you have one)
73 Mark K6HX
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
Mark...yeap we have cellphones here in Clear Lake Texas...you know we can send email, pictures, do GPS tracking wow isnt it amazing. And over in Iraq cellphones (grin) would allow the Predators to send pictures where the bad people are so they can be "negated"...isnt ones and zeros great. Next time you fly on a commercial airliner you should ask the drivers to let you look up front...lots of digital stuff there. Dazzle the crew and ask them to point out the Flight management systems for you!
That still doesnt answer the question of why on Suitsat 2 they should fly a digital transponder.
In my view better engineering doctrine would imply that we try and put the digital transponder ON ISS and let it "cook" there for a bit.
Think about that for a minute.
OK why would that be a good idea? Because the setup should be easier, if something goes wrong with the setup then the "back room" (SPAN) at JSC should be able to send up "words" which can fix the issue...then any problems with the Transponder as it is used could be resolved...and if the entire thing goes tango uniform then it could be brought back to earth (down mass is easy) and looked at.
As it is, with the knowledge that suitsat 1 died on deployment...we would never know if the transponder was just not working or wasnt put together well.
It is completely possible that AMSAT NA is so screwed in its technical ability that it might not be possible to get NASA to let that happen...but that would be a far better use of the transponder then tossing it out into space and seeing what happens.
Robert WB5MZO _________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/
I guesswe need to get you on the design/construction team to show the "experts" how to do it.
Rocky Jones wrote:
It is completely possible that AMSAT NA is so screwed in its technical ability that it might not be possible to get NASA to let that happen...but that would be a far better use of the transponder then tossing it out into space and seeing what happens.
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:44:57 +0000 From: nigel@ngunn.net To: orbitjet@hotmail.com CC: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: According to Rocky Jones
I guesswe need to get you on the design/construction team to show the "experts" how to do it.
the experts were very successful with Suitsat 1. Eagle worked out good as well didnt it?
Suitsat 2...dellivered on time ...oh well not so much. ARISSsat or whatever it is...fourth time is a charm
Robert WB5MZO _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/
Your math seems to be off. Eagle disappeared due to lack of money to pay for a launch rather than technical problems. This is much better than paying for hardware to sit on the ground. Suitsat 2 and ARRISsat are the same thing so there has been no failure yet.AO-51 is in orbit and working.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rocky Jones" orbitjet@hotmail.com To: nigel@ngunn.net Cc: "Amsat BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 15:49 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: According to Rocky Jones
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:44:57 +0000 From: nigel@ngunn.net To: orbitjet@hotmail.com CC: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: According to Rocky Jones
I guesswe need to get you on the design/construction team to show the "experts" how to do it.
the experts were very successful with Suitsat 1. Eagle worked out good as well didnt it?
Suitsat 2...dellivered on time ...oh well not so much. ARISSsat or whatever it is...fourth time is a charm
Robert WB5MZO
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ 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
Rocky Jones wrote:
That still doesnt answer the question of why on Suitsat 2 they should fly a digital transponder.
Actually, it does, you said the reasons yourself.
In my view better engineering doctrine would imply that we try and put the digital transponder ON ISS and let it "cook" there for a bit.
Yup, that would be ideal, I'm nominating you to head that project. This is right up your alley, as since you and your friends within the JSC can navigate the political process easily. Lets run this in tandem with the ARISSSat project.
Thanks for volunteering!
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:57:34 -0400 From: bbj@innismir.net To: orbitjet@hotmail.com
I wrote:
In my view better engineering doctrine would imply that we try and put the digital transponder ON ISS and let it "cook" there for a bit.
you replied
Yup, that would be ideal, I'm nominating you to head that project. This is right up your alley, as since you and your friends within the JSC can navigate the political process easily. Lets run this in tandem with the ARISSSat project.
Thanks for volunteering!
-- Ben Jackson - N1WBV - New Bedford, MA bbj <at> innismir.net - http://www.innismir.net/
one has to wonder Ben why didnt they try it? There would have been a few more issues involved in terms of operating the thing on ISS other then just deploying it (mostly RF work)...
but...
as for me heading the project. I'd deep six the entire software defined transponder, put it on a development effort with some heavy program guidance...find some people who wanted to build linear transponders even if they were overseas (such people exist already) and start flying as many of those as possible.
Right now what in my view the satellite community needs is a 100 percent Oscar 7 or 10...not some technological development issues.
If I were king we would have something to offer the USAF if they had spare lift on a Centaur as they just had...remember the original Oscar's flew on USAF vehicles.
in the meantime I will continue to keep my technical skills sharp (grin) by helping the 10 year olds put together a buoy that is going to float in Clear Lake...
Robert WB5MZO _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Rocky Jones orbitjet@hotmail.com wrote:
As it is, with the knowledge that suitsat 1 died on deployment...we would never know if the transponder was just not working or wasnt put together well.
I wonder if the misunderstandings I infer in the above sentence might be part of the basis of the disagreement on this list. It was my understanding that no transponder flew on SS1: rather the plan was to transmit SSTV and messages from kids, as well as some telemetry. Here is a typical document outlining the plan for the project:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/26jan_suitsat.htm
Second, the word 'died' suggests that ground stations never received the signals from SS1. They did: even with my modest equipment I was able to reach this challenge. However, the signals were highly attenuated, and after two weeks they stopped altogether. Some of the fun that hams and educators had during this time is documented at:
A further point of fact that might inform this discussion: amateur software defined transponders have been under design by Bob and others for years. Granted, they were originally planned for P3-E and Eagle, but it is an exaggeration to suggest that something that has Howard Long first had working in 2005, and that Tom Clark W3IWI, Rick Hambly W2GPS, and Bob McGwier N4HY ran a QSO through in August, 2005 is not ready for prime-time. Hear that QSO at http://www.gpstime.com/files/amsat/Eagle_SDT_1st_Contact.mp3
73, Bruce VE9QRP
"We have a unique opportunity with the Atlas 5/DMSP launch, as DMSP is a relatively lighter spacecraft than many of those that fly on Atlas. For that reason, we have a tremendous amount of performance margin. That's certainly not the case for some future missions that Atlas will be flying. So we're taking advantage of the opportunity before us to use some of that excess performance margin on the Atlas 5," said Col. Michael Moran, the Atlas Group commander.
to bad we didnt have something to use that excess performance...they flew ballast on the flight
Robert WB5MZO _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/
Do you think that they would agree to fly anything other than ballast? Have you talked to the project manager? AMSAT has flown satellites using excess space in the past because the launch agency agreed years in advance and the satellites were built to fit in that space.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rocky Jones" orbitjet@hotmail.com To: "Rocky Jones" orbitjet@hotmail.com Cc: "Amsat BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 17:12 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] THE DMSP launch
"We have a unique opportunity with the Atlas 5/DMSP launch, as DMSP is a relatively lighter spacecraft than many of those that fly on Atlas. For that reason, we have a tremendous amount of performance margin. That's certainly not the case for some future missions that Atlas will be flying. So we're taking advantage of the opportunity before us to use some of that excess performance margin on the Atlas 5," said Col. Michael Moran, the Atlas Group commander.
to bad we didnt have something to use that excess performance...they flew ballast on the flight
Robert WB5MZO
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ 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
Suitsat 2/ARISSsat is a linear transponder done with DSP. Its seems perfectly reasonable to me to do transponder signal filtering and command decoding digitally as it makes things smaller and lighter. You could also make a better transponder by forming filters around the uplink signals so downlink power isn't wasted by repeating noise and downlink power could be allocated equally among users.
Putting ARISSsat on the ISS would be nice but NASA and the Russian space agency haven't agreed to that.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rocky Jones" orbitjet@hotmail.com To: k6hx@arrl.net; "Amsat BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 15:32 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do hamsats? (Or anything else...)
That still doesnt answer the question of why on Suitsat 2 they should fly a digital transponder.
In my view better engineering doctrine would imply that we try and put the digital transponder ON ISS and let it "cook" there for a bit. Robert WB5MZO
Please stop feeding the troll....
----- Original Message ----- From: "John B. Stephensen" kd6ozh@comcast.net To: "Rocky Jones" orbitjet@hotmail.com; k6hx@arrl.net; "Amsat BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 5:44 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do hamsats? (Or anything else...)
[snip]
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rocky Jones" orbitjet@hotmail.com To: k6hx@arrl.net; "Amsat BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 15:32 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do hamsats? (Or anything else...)
[BS deleted]
participants (10)
-
Andrew Rich -
Ben Jackson -
Bruce Robertson -
Diane Bruce -
George Henry -
John B. Stephensen -
Mark VandeWettering -
Michael Tondee -
Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF -
Rocky Jones