I can see it now , USA Today headlines " Ham operator successfully passes ARRL RadioGram over Orbiting Satellite" . As much trouble and time it takes to pass a message over much more controlled frequiencies , I could not imagine trying to pass a formatted message over a satellite , therefore rendering a sat as useless for handling emergency traffic. And I still say a net control type format would allow for many more contacts on field day than just QRZ.
Jerry WB5LHD
At 07:59 AM 6/28/2011, jerry wrote:
I can see it now , USA Today headlines " Ham operator successfully passes ARRL RadioGram over Orbiting Satellite" . As much trouble and time it takes to pass a message over much more controlled frequiencies , I could not imagine trying to pass a formatted message over a satellite , therefore rendering a sat as useless for handling emergency traffic. And I still say a net control type format would allow for many more contacts on field day than just QRZ.
Jerry WB5LHD _______________________________________________ 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
Jerry,
Exactly why I stated that, in my opinion, digital comms is the practical mode for satellite emcomm. Voice Net would be for brief "real-time messages" e.g. "we need a node set up in location blank"; "the hospital needs a generator", "send a helicopter we have x number injured", "my car is stuck and the water is rising", "the fire cut off our escape route, help!" ... No 30+ word formal messages on voice. Digital packet or APRS can be much more efficient and accurate.
Typically, voice is local VHF/UHF simplex (when all else fails). Satellite for longer range coordination links which currently are managed on HF.
73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45 ====================================== BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com EME: 50-1.1kw?, 144-1.4kw, 432-100w, 1296-60w, 3400-? DUBUS Magazine USA Rep [email protected] ======================================
A net could work on a satellite but a net needs to be established and practiced so when the real emergency happens, the net itself is routine and focus can be on the emergency. I'm not surprised we don't have this because of the scarcity of the satellites themselves. While FM gives the most operator base, I would think that this is something that would be left for the multi QSO birds like 29 and 52. That's my take on this.
73 de Pat --- KA9SCF.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:59 AM, jerry [email protected] wrote:
I can see it now , USA Today headlines " Ham operator successfully passes ARRL RadioGram over Orbiting Satellite" . As much trouble and time it takes to pass a message over much more controlled frequiencies , I could not imagine trying to pass a formatted message over a satellite , therefore rendering a sat as useless for handling emergency traffic. And I still say a net control type format would allow for many more contacts on field day than just QRZ.
Jerry WB5LHD _______________________________________________ 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 Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:30:40 -0500 Patrick Green [email protected] wrote:
A net could work on a satellite but a net needs to be established and practiced so when the real emergency happens, the net itself is routine and focus can be on the emergency.
How about we have some discussion that doesn't eventually get forced round to emergency communications? Emcomms is the cancer that is killing amateur radio.
Gordon MM0YEQ
On the contrary. Emcomm is the only thing keeping the government on our side and protecting the facilities we have.
On 28/06/11 22:45, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
How about we have some discussion that doesn't eventually get forced round to emergency communications? Emcomms is the cancer that is killing amateur radio.
Gordon MM0YEQ _______________________________________________
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:00:30 +0100 "Nigel A. Gunn" [email protected] wrote:
Don't top post, it screws up the flow of conversation
On the contrary. Emcomm is the only thing keeping the government on our side and protecting the facilities we have.
It's also generated a huge crowd of "amateurs" who have no real interest in the hobby beyond buying the latest shiny new box in the toyshop and playing at police dispatchers. These wallies then stomp their moronic chatter all over anyone else who happens to be using a frequency.
The emergency services have their own frequencies and their own kit, paid for out of our taxes. They've got enough comms of their own, or at least they *should* have.
Gordon MM0YEQ
participants (5)
-
Edward R. Cole -
Gordon JC Pearce -
jerry -
Nigel A. Gunn -
Patrick Green