Team: I'm not going to be able to put an agenda on EaglePedia until tomorrow.
Things I'd like to discuss: 1. Budget submissions -- I have some, what else is ccoming? What estimates are coming? 2. Status reports -- what should I highlight at Symposium in my BRIEF remarks? Who is making what presentations? 3. Did we write off L-band or not in San Diego? I remember, and my notes and one other attendee confirm, that we wrote off L-band for the digital uplink, but briefly discussed it as ananalog uplink. We never made a decision. Lets discuss and decide. 4. Status reports from those we haven't heard from in a while -- power, sensors, etc. 5. Bob and Rick discussed on the phone, (I was next to Rick) the idea of: Rethinking S2 (3GHz) for the Digital uplink This frees up S1 for any use We offer that anyone willing can develop and submit for testing and qualification a stand-alone L/S transponder to fly in one of the TSFR slots, using fixed antennas. It would be usable at/near Apogee, like the microwave packages on AO-13 and A)-40. What do you think? Les's discuss this.
Any other topics? Remember 2100 EDT, 1800 PDT.
Thanks & 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org
We offer that anyone willing can develop and submit fortesting and qualification a stand-alone L/S transponder to fly in one of the TSFR slots, using fixed antennas. It would be usable at/near Apogee, like the microwave packages on AO-13 and A)-40. What do you think? Les's discuss this.
Bad idea. We discussed having ONE SDX transponder and ONE digital communications payload. If for some reason it is decided that the DCP is on neither S1 nor L (which itself would be a bad idea...), AND it was decided that there was a desire for old-style transponders on L/S, then it makes sense to build it as part of the SDX, and not have a THIRD payload.
Matt
We offer that anyone willing can develop and submit fortesting and qualification a stand-alone L/S transponder to fly in one of the TSFR slots, using fixed antennas. It would be usable at/near Apogee, like the microwave packages on AO-13 and A)-40. What do you think? Les's discuss this.
Bad idea. We discussed having ONE SDX transponder and ONE digital communications payload. If for some reason it is decided that the DCP is on neither S1 nor L (which itself would be a bad idea...), AND it was decided that there was a desire for old-style transponders on L/S, then it makes sense to build it as part of the SDX, and not have a THIRD payload.
Like Matt, I am not in favor of this. We need to design the system for services, not design the spacecraft as a bus for a collection of modules.
I recall two SDX payloads, but I'm old and my memory is failing. The Eagle block diagram from Oct 2005 shows a pair of SDX modules, and the SDX block diagram shows a U and an L uplink, an S1 and a V downlink. Of course, at that time the digital payload was to be C/C.
Did we decide to kill the L uplink for SDX/analog use in San Diego? I recall that we decided to not use an L uplink for the digital system.
73,
Lyle KK7P
Lyle: Per my notes, we did NOT kill the L uplinkfor SDX. We DID decide not to use it for the digital package.
We need to decide on whether or not there will be an L-uplink for the narrow band package or a dedicated L/S TSFR package.
I'd like to at least discuss, and maybe decide whethe or not to fly an L uplink on the command/analog channel. Bob and Rick are proposing OFFERING a L/S package to be developed by others and flown in a TSFR space if it qualilfies. I see this as no cost, huge gain in both perceptions and capability.
Please join tomorrow and comment. I want to hear your thoughts!
Thanks & 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org
Lyle Johnson wrote:
We offer that anyone willing can develop and submit fortesting and qualification a stand-alone L/S transponder to fly in one of the TSFR slots, using fixed antennas. It would be usable at/near Apogee, like the microwave packages on AO-13 and A)-40. What do you think? Les's discuss this.
Bad idea. We discussed having ONE SDX transponder and ONE digital communications payload. If for some reason it is decided that the DCP is on neither S1 nor L (which itself would be a bad idea...), AND it was decided that there was a desire for old-style transponders on L/S, then it makes sense to build it as part of the SDX, and not have a THIRD payload.
Like Matt, I am not in favor of this. We need to design the system for services, not design the spacecraft as a bus for a collection of modules.
I recall two SDX payloads, but I'm old and my memory is failing. The Eagle block diagram from Oct 2005 shows a pair of SDX modules, and the SDX block diagram shows a U and an L uplink, an S1 and a V downlink. Of course, at that time the digital payload was to be C/C.
Did we decide to kill the L uplink for SDX/analog use in San Diego? I recall that we decided to not use an L uplink for the digital system.
73,
Lyle KK7P
On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 22:35 -0400, Jim Sanford wrote:
I see this as no cost, huge gain in both perceptions and capability.
While I know exactly what you mean, I really can't let "no cost" go by without comment. Of course there's a cost, in at least antenna real estate, power, mass, and logistical complexity both before and after launch.
One of the things we need to remember from the AO-40 experience is the exponential explosion of testing complexity integrating a complex satellite.
73 - Bdale, KB0G
Jim,
I just got off the phone with Graham Shirville in England. He, Howard Long and others have been taking note of the controversy on amsat-bb and want to offer help, if it would be productive.
Based on that conversation and conversations with you and Bob, I would like to make a revised proposal for consideration by the Eagle team.
a) Move C-C Rider's primary uplink to the S2-band (3400-3410 MHz) with some modest additional uplink capability on L-band (1260-1270 MHz).
b) Add another separate SDX transponder for mode L/S, essentially identical to the U/S SDX transponder. This transponder would use fixed antennas and so will be usable only at apogee. It would also serve as a backup command and control access to the IHU. By being separate it would reduce the risk of common component failures.
Graham will inquire of the local authorities in England about getting matching Amateur Satellite status for their S2 band.
Graham will come to San Francisco prepared to discuss an evolving comprehensive plan to petition the ITU for additional Amateur Satellite frequency allocations. He will need our help with this and we will need ARRL's help as our ITU representative.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: eagle-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Jim Sanford Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 10:35 PM To: Lyle Johnson Cc: EAGLE Subject: [eagle] Re: Team Speak tomorrow night
Lyle: Per my notes, we did NOT kill the L uplinkfor SDX. We DID decide not to use it for the digital package.
We need to decide on whether or not there will be an L-uplink for the narrow band package or a dedicated L/S TSFR package.
I'd like to at least discuss, and maybe decide whethe or not to fly an L uplink on the command/analog channel. Bob and Rick are proposing OFFERING a L/S package to be developed by others and flown in a TSFR space if it qualilfies. I see this as no cost, huge gain in both perceptions and capability.
Please join tomorrow and comment. I want to hear your thoughts!
Thanks & 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org
Lyle Johnson wrote:
We offer that anyone willing can develop and submit fortesting and qualification a stand-alone L/S transponder to fly in one of the TSFR slots, using fixed antennas. It would be usable at/near Apogee, like the microwave packages on AO-13 and A)-40. What do you think? Les's discuss this.
Bad idea. We discussed having ONE SDX transponder and ONE digital communications payload. If for some reason it is decided that the DCP is on neither S1 nor L (which itself would be a bad idea...), AND it was decided that there was a desire for old-style transponders on L/S, then it makes sense to build it as part of the SDX, and not have a THIRD payload.
Like Matt, I am not in favor of this. We need to design the system for services, not design the spacecraft as a bus for a collection of modules.
I recall two SDX payloads, but I'm old and my memory is failing. The Eagle block diagram from Oct 2005 shows a pair of SDX modules, and the SDX block diagram shows a U and an L uplink, an S1 and a V downlink. Of course, at that time the digital payload was to be C/C.
Did we decide to kill the L uplink for SDX/analog use in San Diego? I recall that we decided to not use an L uplink for the digital system.
73,
Lyle KK7P
_______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Roger. Let's discuss tonight.
Rick Hambly (W2GPS) wrote:
Jim,
I just got off the phone with Graham Shirville in England. He, Howard Long and others have been taking note of the controversy on amsat-bb and want to offer help, if it would be productive.
Based on that conversation and conversations with you and Bob, I would like to make a revised proposal for consideration by the Eagle team.
a) Move C-C Rider's primary uplink to the S2-band (3400-3410 MHz) with some modest additional uplink capability on L-band (1260-1270 MHz).
b) Add another separate SDX transponder for mode L/S, essentially identical to the U/S SDX transponder. This transponder would use fixed antennas and so will be usable only at apogee. It would also serve as a backup command and control access to the IHU. By being separate it would reduce the risk of common component failures.
Graham will inquire of the local authorities in England about getting matching Amateur Satellite status for their S2 band.
Graham will come to San Francisco prepared to discuss an evolving comprehensive plan to petition the ITU for additional Amateur Satellite frequency allocations. He will need our help with this and we will need ARRL's help as our ITU representative.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: eagle-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Jim Sanford Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 10:35 PM To: Lyle Johnson Cc: EAGLE Subject: [eagle] Re: Team Speak tomorrow night
Lyle: Per my notes, we did NOT kill the L uplinkfor SDX. We DID decide not to use it for the digital package.
We need to decide on whether or not there will be an L-uplink for the narrow band package or a dedicated L/S TSFR package.
I'd like to at least discuss, and maybe decide whethe or not to fly an L uplink on the command/analog channel. Bob and Rick are proposing OFFERING a L/S package to be developed by others and flown in a TSFR space if it qualilfies. I see this as no cost, huge gain in both perceptions and capability.
Please join tomorrow and comment. I want to hear your thoughts!
Thanks & 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org
Lyle Johnson wrote:
We offer that anyone willing can develop and submit fortesting and qualification a stand-alone L/S transponder to fly in one of the TSFR slots, using fixed antennas. It would be usable at/near Apogee, like the microwave packages on AO-13 and A)-40. What do you think? Les's discuss this.
Bad idea. We discussed having ONE SDX transponder and ONE digital communications payload. If for some reason it is decided that the DCP is on neither S1 nor L (which itself would be a bad idea...), AND it was decided that there was a desire for old-style transponders on L/S, then it makes sense to build it as part of the SDX, and not have a THIRD payload.
Like Matt, I am not in favor of this. We need to design the system for services, not design the spacecraft as a bus for a collection of modules.
I recall two SDX payloads, but I'm old and my memory is failing. The Eagle block diagram from Oct 2005 shows a pair of SDX modules, and the SDX block diagram shows a U and an L uplink, an S1 and a V downlink. Of course, at that time the digital payload was to be C/C.
Did we decide to kill the L uplink for SDX/analog use in San Diego? I recall that we decided to not use an L uplink for the digital system.
73,
Lyle KK7P
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
I know from documentation I received from I8CVS that this will exclude Italy from the digital payload. I am expecting to hear from several other countries that, excluding action from a WARC, they will be excluded from the digital communications package if we use S2.
Bob
Jim Sanford wrote:
Roger. Let's discuss tonight.
Rick Hambly (W2GPS) wrote:
Jim,
I just got off the phone with Graham Shirville in England. He, Howard Long and others have been taking note of the controversy on amsat-bb and want to offer help, if it would be productive.
Based on that conversation and conversations with you and Bob, I would like to make a revised proposal for consideration by the Eagle team.
a) Move C-C Rider's primary uplink to the S2-band (3400-3410 MHz) with some modest additional uplink capability on L-band (1260-1270 MHz).
b) Add another separate SDX transponder for mode L/S, essentially identical to the U/S SDX transponder. This transponder would use fixed antennas and so will be usable only at apogee. It would also serve as a backup command and control access to the IHU. By being separate it would reduce the risk of common component failures.
Graham will inquire of the local authorities in England about getting matching Amateur Satellite status for their S2 band.
Graham will come to San Francisco prepared to discuss an evolving comprehensive plan to petition the ITU for additional Amateur Satellite frequency allocations. He will need our help with this and we will need ARRL's help as our ITU representative.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
Hi Bob
I know from documentation I received from I8CVS that this will exclude Italy from the digital payload. I am expecting to hear from several other countries that, excluding action from a WARC, they will be excluded from the digital communications package if we use S2.
I think it was clear from the meeting last night that there are two options for the wide band DCP that will be proposed for further discussion.
Rick will propose a version with both L and S2 uplinks and a C downlink.
John will propose a version with C uplink and X downlink (I wasn't sure if an L uplink was also included).
In Rick's proposal, as L will still be available so Region 1 with their current allocations, Region 1 will have access to the DCP whether or not S2 is available to us. It seemed clear from last night's discussion that the assessment to drop L band at San Diego wasn't the right decision.
There was also some discussion about whether the high bandwidth digital mode would be viable at L band, probably limited by a non-steerable RX antenna on the spacecraft and uplink EIRP, although somehow I doubt Domenico has a problem with with uplink EIRP ;-)
As it's being revisited again in the next couple of weeks, we can go over these again in further detail with the benefit of both your's and Tom's input.
Cheers, Howard
For some reason, I was not able to get on last night. When I pushed "Connect", I got a screen that said AMSAT, but there was no way to go any farther.
Could the fact that I have a new ISP be the cause? Recently, I picked up a faster wireless ISP, Beecreek.net.
So far, everything else has worked OK with it.
I also STILL have not be told how to get onto the locked pages of Eaglepedia.
CU in SF.
73,
Bill, W3XO ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Sanford To: Rick Hambly (W2GPS) Cc: 'EAGLE' Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:30 PM Subject: [eagle] Re: Team Speak tomorrow night
Roger. Let's discuss tonight.
Rick Hambly (W2GPS) wrote: Jim,
I just got off the phone with Graham Shirville in England. He, Howard Long and others have been taking note of the controversy on amsat-bb and want to offer help, if it would be productive.
Based on that conversation and conversations with you and Bob, I would like to make a revised proposal for consideration by the Eagle team.
a) Move C-C Rider's primary uplink to the S2-band (3400-3410 MHz) with some modest additional uplink capability on L-band (1260-1270 MHz).
b) Add another separate SDX transponder for mode L/S, essentially identical to the U/S SDX transponder. This transponder would use fixed antennas and so will be usable only at apogee. It would also serve as a backup command and control access to the IHU. By being separate it would reduce the risk of common component failures.
Graham will inquire of the local authorities in England about getting matching Amateur Satellite status for their S2 band.
Graham will come to San Francisco prepared to discuss an evolving comprehensive plan to petition the ITU for additional Amateur Satellite frequency allocations. He will need our help with this and we will need ARRL's help as our ITU representative.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: eagle-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Jim Sanford Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 10:35 PM To: Lyle Johnson Cc: EAGLE Subject: [eagle] Re: Team Speak tomorrow night
Lyle: Per my notes, we did NOT kill the L uplinkfor SDX. We DID decide not to use it for the digital package.
We need to decide on whether or not there will be an L-uplink for the narrow band package or a dedicated L/S TSFR package.
I'd like to at least discuss, and maybe decide whethe or not to fly an L uplink on the command/analog channel. Bob and Rick are proposing OFFERING a L/S package to be developed by others and flown in a TSFR space if it qualilfies. I see this as no cost, huge gain in both perceptions and capability.
Please join tomorrow and comment. I want to hear your thoughts!
Thanks & 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org
Lyle Johnson wrote:
We offer that anyone willing can develop and submit for testing and qualification a stand-alone L/S transponder to fly in one of the TSFR slots, using fixed antennas. It would be usable at/near Apogee, like the microwave packages on AO-13 and A)-40. What do you think? Les's discuss this.
Bad idea. We discussed having ONE SDX transponder and ONE digital communications payload. If for some reason it is decided that the DCP is on neither S1 nor L (which itself would be a bad idea...), AND it was decided that there was a desire for old-style transponders on L/S, then it makes sense to build it as part of the SDX, and not have a THIRD payload. Like Matt, I am not in favor of this. We need to design the system for services, not design the spacecraft as a bus for a collection of modules.
I recall two SDX payloads, but I'm old and my memory is failing. The Eagle block diagram from Oct 2005 shows a pair of SDX modules, and the SDX block diagram shows a U and an L uplink, an S1 and a V downlink. Of course, at that time the digital payload was to be C/C.
Did we decide to kill the L uplink for SDX/analog use in San Diego? I recall that we decided to not use an L uplink for the digital system.
73,
Lyle KK7P
_______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
At 11:02 AM 9/13/2006, Bill Tynan wrote:
I also STILL have not be told how to get onto the locked pages of Eaglepedia.
There are two things that are required to get into the locked pages of EaglePedia.
1) You must be logged into EaglePedia
2) You must have Monobook set as your skin in preferences. This is very important because it is the only skin that will display them properly.
To change your Preferences do the following:
a) After logging on, select "Preferences" on the very top line of the page. b) On the Preferences page, there is a list of options on the left side click on the option that says "Skin" c) Select "Monobook" by clicking on the radio button. d) Select "Save" to permanently change your preference to Monobook.
73,
Emily
Well, I blew it. I had burned into my mind that the conference was Wednesday (tonite). I'm en rout to meetings in MA & checked into a motel with internet so I could be online tonite. I feel dumb. :-!
Tom
I also remember 2 SDX payloads, but this will be useless without redundancy elsewhere.
Given the use of UV for both class 0 and class 1 users, and the fact that an L uplink won't support small fixed ground station antennas for class 1, I think that using the L receiver as a backup for the U receiver isn't sufficient. We need 2 U receivers in case one receiver fails or in case the omni/gain antenna relay fails. We also need 2 V transmitters for the same reason.
If we end up with a digital uplink on L-band, the SDX could be given an output from that receiver. If not, a separate L receiver could be added or the U receiver designed for band switching with 2 RF amplifiers, 2 first LOs, 2 mixers and a switch in each receiver. Any S-band transmitter should be a separate module.
I've attached two block diagrams showing the proposed architecture for U/V only and for UL/VS.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lyle Johnson" kk7p@wavecable.com To: "Matt Ettus" matt@ettus.com Cc: "EAGLE" eagle@amsat.org Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 01:38 UTC Subject: [eagle] Re: Team Speak tomorrow night
We offer that anyone willing can develop and submit fortesting and qualification a stand-alone L/S transponder to fly in one
of
the TSFR slots, using fixed antennas. It would be usable at/near Apogee, like the microwave packages on AO-13 and A)-40. What do you think? Les's discuss this.
Bad idea. We discussed having ONE SDX transponder and ONE digital communications payload. If for some reason it is decided that the DCP is on neither S1 nor L (which itself would be a bad idea...), AND it was decided that there was a desire for old-style transponders on L/S, then it makes sense to build it as part of the SDX, and not have a THIRD
payload.
Like Matt, I am not in favor of this. We need to design the system for services, not design the spacecraft as a bus for a collection of modules.
I recall two SDX payloads, but I'm old and my memory is failing. The Eagle block diagram from Oct 2005 shows a pair of SDX modules, and the SDX block diagram shows a U and an L uplink, an S1 and a V downlink. Of course, at that time the digital payload was to be C/C.
Did we decide to kill the L uplink for SDX/analog use in San Diego? I recall that we decided to not use an L uplink for the digital system.
73,
Lyle KK7P
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Folks
Like Matt, I am not in favor of this. We need to design the system for services, not design the spacecraft as a bus for a collection of modules.
I recall two SDX payloads, but I'm old and my memory is failing. The Eagle block diagram from Oct 2005 shows a pair of SDX modules, and the SDX block diagram shows a U and an L uplink, an S1 and a V downlink. Of course, at that time the digital payload was to be C/C.
Did we decide to kill the L uplink for SDX/analog use in San Diego? I recall that we decided to not use an L uplink for the digital system.
I think Lyle's note sums it up - I am certainly not clear at all at the moment what's been dumped. Right now it looks to me as if at least 70% of the spacecraft was dumped at San Diego, and I am sure that is the view of many others.
From speaking to the folks on this side of the pond I don't even think most
people realise that since San Diego S1 was only ever considered for a wide band digital up/downlink, not a conventional narrow band up/downlink. Or maybe I've misunderstood.
I am sure that if Matt doesn't want S1 then I'm absolutely certain that as long as there's space for a five turn helix a la AO-40, connected to the SDX as we discussed in Oct 2005, a conventional analog downlink would satisfy the masses, whether or not they can hear it. Add to that the possibility of an L band uplink possibly sneaked off the digital SDX rx and everyone's happy. Except for the integration testers, that is.
I also believe that it is particularly important to understand and quantify further the real 'sewer' issue of S band that Jan King reported. I did my own spec an tests over the weekend, including a 360 degree scan at 20 degree az intervals at the horizon, and then again at 10 and 20 degree elevations using a 1.2m dish and CP patch that I used for AO-40, and since then AO-51. This opened up more questions than answers. For example, there is plenty of WiFi here in Central London, but _none_ of it is between 2400 and 2430MHz. I need to understand why elevation totally resolves some ISM interference but does not apparently have much effect on WiFi according to the spec an plots. Plus, what _real_ qualitative effect does it have on an SSB 3kHz signal, both out of band and in band?
I look forward to seeing you all tonight.
73, Howard G6LVB
In my mind this is the REAL issue - will there be room for the L and S antennas for this operation. And I have NO idea as to the answer to that as we have not designed the antenna array yet, much less the whole spaceframe. If there is antenna and module space then some things like this could be flown. I otherwise refuse to get caught up in the emotions of the issue.
Dick Jansson ---------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: eagle-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Howard Long Sent: Tuesday, 12 September, 2006 1025 To: 'Lyle Johnson'; 'Matt Ettus' Cc: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] Re: Team Speak tomorrow night
(snip) I am sure that if Matt doesn't want S1 then I'm absolutely certain that as long as there's space for a five turn helix a la AO-40, (snip)
Dick Jansson-rr wrote:
In my mind this is the REAL issue - will there be room for the L and S antennas for this operation. And I have NO idea as to the answer to that as we have not designed the antenna array yet, much less the whole spaceframe. If there is antenna and module space then some things like this could be flown. I otherwise refuse to get caught up in the emotions of the issue.
Good for you. Given the latest drawing of the antenna concept if we changed the S1 for an S2 array, we MIGHT be able to put an L/S1 antenna on the +Z but it would be the old P3 type, boresight, no steering. Again, I am NOT proposing a change or an addition. I oppose any change without cause from the decisions we made in SAN. I am asking a question. What do we do if S1 is under serious threat? Two days ago, I believed it might be. In addition, there will be a million questions asked at the symposium. Today, I am not so sure and Paul Rinaldo has not even a whiff of a problem. I have asked him to study it in detail while he is in Geneva at the ITU (timing is everything is it not?).
Bob
Dick Jansson
As I understand the proposal, the L/S package developers are welcome to use SDX. Jim
Matt Ettus wrote:
We offer that anyone willing can develop and submit fortesting and qualification a stand-alone L/S transponder to fly in one of the TSFR slots, using fixed antennas. It would be usable at/near Apogee, like the microwave packages on AO-13 and A)-40. What do you think? Les's discuss this.
Bad idea. We discussed having ONE SDX transponder and ONE digital communications payload. If for some reason it is decided that the DCP is on neither S1 nor L (which itself would be a bad idea...), AND it was decided that there was a desire for old-style transponders on L/S, then it makes sense to build it as part of the SDX, and not have a THIRD payload.
Matt
Jim has slightly distorted the phone call. I have not agreed to anything or suggested anything. I asked Rick a question. What do you think we should in the case we find we are losing S1?
I have been investigating the details on this apparent loss of S1. Rick has been pushing a particular individual as that person who seems to know everything in Europe. I trusted this as correct and he does seem to have an accumulation of documentation which he will discuss. He has sent me a spreadsheet that I have not gone through but his spread sheet is not what I consider documentation. What I am finding is that this individual is a typical chicken little. If we listened to this individual, we would not attempt anything since everything is doomed to failure. I also find that he has mixed up WiMax with thinking it is a part 15 device. It is a licensed service so far as I am aware.
Paul Rinaldo is coming to San Francisco. We need to get well and truly serious about finding out what bands we can expect have available to us in a decade and we need input from people with some credibility. I suggest that Rinaldo is one credible source. We need to find other credible sources and do the due diligence on this to put this to bed absolutely for the time being. Rinaldo commissioned a study at the League called ARIA on the rise in noise temperature. I am attempting to get this data for our use.
There is a tremendous amount of work we can do from the digital communications unit out through the C band antenna and most of the receive system without knowing exactly what the receiver band will be. That said, I see no reason whatsoever not to assume we are going to use S1 until we know we cannot use S1.
Rick and I have a meeting tomorrow in D.C. that requires our presence. I will be on the road tonight, leaving after work to go down. I intend having dinner with my wife and relaxing before I go. My likelihood ratio is approaching zero.
I do have very good news personally. I have successfully built an acceptable team to take over the development of a system at work for which I did the research. Attempting to manage this several hundred million dollar development from an office in Princeton while the work was being done in Maryland has been an utter nightmare. It has literally eaten me alive for almost three months after I got well and truly above the "see"-level. That transition was completed last week. At 52, I think this is the last major research project I will undertake and from now on will limit myself to consulting only since I am absolutely "maxed out". I briefed several directors of agencies of the U.S. government in San Diego a couple of weeks ago and they jumped all over taking this effort into their house. Whew. FYI, I showed them GnuRadio,USRP, and the tuner doing a particular job. They asked me how many thousands of dollars per channel it would cost since they are paying nearly $100,000 per channel now (if you ignore some infrastrcture costs). I told them they needed to drop a letter. They looked puzzled and I hesitated for a moment and said "the s on thousands". I really enjoyed that a lot. SDR is a wonderful thing.
Bob
Jim Sanford wrote:
Team: I'm not going to be able to put an agenda on EaglePedia until tomorrow.
Things I'd like to discuss: 1. Budget submissions -- I have some, what else is ccoming? What estimates are coming? 2. Status reports -- what should I highlight at Symposium in my BRIEF remarks? Who is making what presentations? 3. Did we write off L-band or not in San Diego? I remember, and my notes and one other attendee confirm, that we wrote off L-band for the digital uplink, but briefly discussed it as ananalog uplink. We never made a decision. Lets discuss and decide. 4. Status reports from those we haven't heard from in a while -- power, sensors, etc. 5. Bob and Rick discussed on the phone, (I was next to Rick) the idea of: Rethinking S2 (3GHz) for the Digital uplink This frees up S1 for any use We offer that anyone willing can develop and submit for testing and qualification a stand-alone L/S transponder to fly in one of the TSFR slots, using fixed antennas. It would be usable at/near Apogee, like the microwave packages on AO-13 and A)-40. What do you think? Les's discuss this.
Any other topics? Remember 2100 EDT, 1800 PDT.
Thanks & 73, Jim wb4gcs@amsat.org
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Jim -- not sure I'll be online. I have to travel (driving) tomorrow to attend 2 meetings at Haystack Observatory (on the MA/NH border north of Beantown) and I'm not sure where/when I will settle for the night (probably around Hartford) and if I'll find connectivity.
Tom
participants (13)
-
Bdale Garbee -
Bill Tynan -
Dick Jansson-rr -
Emily Clarke -
Howard Long -
Howard Long -
Jim Sanford -
John B. Stephensen -
Lyle Johnson -
Matt Ettus -
Rick Hambly (W2GPS) -
Robert McGwier -
Tom Clark, K3IO