On Sep 15, 2007, at 2:49 AM, Eric H. Christensen wrote:

Well does that mean that if we launch a satellite with an engine of some kind that it keeps it from being a satellite? All geo-sync satellites have some kind of thruster onboard to keep them in that orbit or to move them to a new orbit. I don't think the ISS can be taken out of orbit but it definitely changes its orbit by control.

Plenty of satellites have thrusters or other means of exerting force to move in their orbits.

Ask the commercial geosync satellite folks if they carry station- keeping propellant, and what they do with the birds when they run out of it.

Oh and it definitely *could* be taken out of orbit. SkyLab was. Mir was. :-)

It'd fly really well without wings... for a short time. And a fairly predictable value of "short".

Maybe they could call it an airplane THEN, one on its way to its one and only (hopefully) unmanned crash landing.

:-)

If they do call it an airplane, it'll need a ferry permit for the flight, an Airworthiness Certificate or waiver, a Pilot's operating handbook with written limitations including stall speeds and other important items, and a proper weight and balance done before it even meets the bare documentation requirements.

Depending on airspace being flown through, it may need a working Transponder, not to mention numerous Supplemental Type Certificates for all those modifications it's had done to it on-orbit!

And then it doesn't have the necessary equipment on board for legal VFR flight, let alone IFR flight. (GRIN) We'll start with shipping them up an altimeter and a magnetic compass so they don't get lost on the way down...

LOL! What a joke. Airplane my eye.

-- Nate Duehr, WY0X nate@natetech.com

Sadly so. He wasn't required to file a flight plan since he was going to be using visual. However, one should know the territory and the trecherous winds they bring in that part of Nevada. The winds in the desert here can be unbelieveably nasty. From what I've read, in the attempt to locate Mr. Fossett, they've found crashes that might date back to the 1960's and that nobody has found until then. A flight plan in this case could make all of the difference.

Jeff WB3JFS

----- Original Message ----- From: "Nate Duehr" nate@natetech.com To: "AMSAT-BB BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 2:46 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ISS a Satellite or an airplane?

On Sep 15, 2007, at 2:44 AM, Jeff Yanko wrote:

...

My argument would be if it is tracked by using keps it's a satellite, if it has a flight plan then it's a plane. :)

Plenty of planes out there flying right now without flight plans. Re: (sadly) Steve Fossett.

-- Nate Duehr, WY0X nate@natetech.com

---

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

.......UHM......... Very interesting thing ..... 73" Francesco IW4DVZ

-----Messaggio originale----- Da: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] Per conto di Alan P. Biddle Inviato: sabato 15 settembre 2007 13.04 A: amsat-bb@amsat.org; fieldops@amsat.org Oggetto: [amsat-bb] Re: ISS a Satellite or an airplane?

If it stays up due to Bernoulli, it is an airplane. If it stays up due to Newton, it is a satellite. If it is a helicopter and stays up, it is a miracle.

:)

Alan WA4SCA

_______________________________________________ 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

John, I think you hit the nail on the head. All of his responses before late last night were talking about the fact that the ISS wasn't a DXCC entity and couldn't be claimed for an award. Then I presented him with my QSO with KB1GVR that was via the ISS and he said it didn't count because it was via an aircraft.

I've got a message in with Dave Sumner that he responded to earlier this morning. I'm going to see if I can get to the bottom of this even if I have to do a picture show for them up in Newington.

73s, Eric W4OTN

John P. Toscano wrote:

Eric Christensen wrote:

...

Can someone sanity check me, please? I'm trying to convince a guy at the ARRL that the ISS needs to be added to the LoTW as a satellite and he says it is not valid because it isn't a satellite but rather an airplane.

Anyone out there help me with this?

73s, Eric W4OTN

Perhaps they are thinking of the ISS only in the mode where an astronaut talks to an earth station in split simplex mode.

For the purposes of a satellite QSO, they are most likely allow only the situation where two earth stations talk to one another, using a transponder of some sort that is in orbit. You're not talking TO the satellite, you're talking THROUGH the satellite to another earth station.

I believe that the ISS radio(s) can be (but only rarely are) configured as a cross-band repeater, in which case two earth stations WOULD be able to talk to one another THROUGH the orbiting ISS satellite. If this is the case, it should probably be added to LOTW, since it's just like any other satellite transponder (except that it can be fixed in orbit if it breaks!) If this is done, however, clear instructions would need to be promulgated to point out that it is only valid in transponder mode for a satellite QSO.

OTOH, when the astronauts in their space station are talking with a ground station, that should be valid for a (non-satellite) QSO. One problem becomes "what is the location of the (non-earth station)?" Should ISS be a "location", albeit a moving target? I don't think it's too easy for an astronaut to give you a Maidenhead Grid Square of their location, but I guess that depends on how well a GPS works at that altitude and speed inside all that metal. But people in the VHF & up contesting community talk about "high-speed roving", and the ISS is the ultimate high-speed rover! But there's another important issue here. Although it is crystal clear (to me, at least) that the ISS is not an airplane (heck, there's no AIR up there!), it behaves in many respects like an aeronautical mobile station, and those are excluded from most contests. So communication between an earth station and a space station seems to be legitimately excluded from most contests and awards. It would still be nice to have the QSL card in your collection.

73 de WØJT AMSAT-NA Life Member #2292 _______________________________________________ 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

We have this sort of discussion every year before field day. ARRL permits contacts VIA the ISS for credit as a satellite but does not count contacts TO the ISS crew for credit (though many are made just for fun).

Since the ISS is a unique situation (currently being the only manned satellite with amateur radio gear), the ARRL has some conflicting rules to deal with. It is a satellite so contacts via it should be legitimate. It is a manned craft not in contact with the Earth so it does not count for contacts just like an aeronautical mobile contact does not count.

I personally do not think having the ISS declared a DXCC entity is a good idea. The crew would be overwhelmed when on and the ISS is not a permanent installation.

On the other hand, what do you think the ARRL will do with manned amateur radio locations on the moon?

Kenneth - N5VHO

________________________________

From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org on behalf of John P. Toscano Sent: Sat 9/15/2007 5:01 AM Cc: fieldops@amsat.org; amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: ISS a Satellite or an airplane?

Eric Christensen wrote:

Can someone sanity check me, please? I'm trying to convince a guy at the ARRL that the ISS needs to be added to the LoTW as a satellite and he says it is not valid because it isn't a satellite but rather an airplane.

Anyone out there help me with this?

73s, Eric W4OTN

Perhaps they are thinking of the ISS only in the mode where an astronaut talks to an earth station in split simplex mode.

For the purposes of a satellite QSO, they are most likely allow only the situation where two earth stations talk to one another, using a transponder of some sort that is in orbit. You're not talking TO the satellite, you're talking THROUGH the satellite to another earth station.

I believe that the ISS radio(s) can be (but only rarely are) configured as a cross-band repeater, in which case two earth stations WOULD be able to talk to one another THROUGH the orbiting ISS satellite. If this is the case, it should probably be added to LOTW, since it's just like any other satellite transponder (except that it can be fixed in orbit if it breaks!) If this is done, however, clear instructions would need to be promulgated to point out that it is only valid in transponder mode for a satellite QSO.

OTOH, when the astronauts in their space station are talking with a ground station, that should be valid for a (non-satellite) QSO. One problem becomes "what is the location of the (non-earth station)?" Should ISS be a "location", albeit a moving target? I don't think it's too easy for an astronaut to give you a Maidenhead Grid Square of their location, but I guess that depends on how well a GPS works at that altitude and speed inside all that metal. But people in the VHF & up contesting community talk about "high-speed roving", and the ISS is the ultimate high-speed rover! But there's another important issue here. Although it is crystal clear (to me, at least) that the ISS is not an airplane (heck, there's no AIR up there!), it behaves in many respects like an aeronautical mobile station, and those are excluded from most contests. So communication between an earth station and a space station seems to be legitimately excluded from most contests and awards. It would still be nice to have the QSL card in your collection.

73 de WØJT AMSAT-NA Life Member #2292 _______________________________________________ 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