We also (re)learned after the fact that ITU allocation by region isn't the same as the individual countries allowing use within their borders. As a result S1 as an uplink doesn't really solve the problem of world-wide access either. Given that experience, how confident are we that C/X would be any more or less accessable?
From what I've seen so far, Rick's proposal appears to strike a very
reasonable balance. Perhaps compiling a database of band authorizations by country would be a good project for AMSAT-International.
73, Lee-McLamb
On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 10:14 -0400, Rick Hambly (W2GPS) wrote:
John,
You say "I still like S1/C, but if there is decision that it isn't feasible for non-technical reasons and we can't be absolutely certain that L/C will remain available everywhere through 2030, C/X is better than LS2/C by providing better worldwide availablity [sic] of the satellite."
My proposal (S2/C primary + L/C at apogee) is based on the best technical solution, as recognized at SDO, with mitigation for the political issues. I feel that if we abandon this opportunity to use the best band for the job, S2, we will never solve the Region 1 issue and we might as well give the band back. S2 has all the advantages of S1 without the interference noise.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle