Folks,
I believe that I read somewhere recently (although I can't seem to find it now) that the concept of an IF switching matrix has been discounted. I don't know what the reason for this was, however on the basis that it seems clear that no-one is sure what bands may or may not be useable or available over the next few years, is it worth re-addressing this for feasibility?
Howard
Either a single or redundant SDXs could provide switching internally. If there is an all-analog path, there must be an additional analog switch. The number of receivers and tranmitters has to be decided first. I think that 2 U receivers and 2 V transmitters are required. If the ACP is LS2/C or C/X then add 1 L receiver and 1 S1 transmitter.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard Long" [email protected] To: "'EAGLE'" [email protected] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:09 UTC Subject: [eagle] IF switching
Folks,
I believe that I read somewhere recently (although I can't seem to find it now) that the concept of an IF switching matrix has been discounted. I don't know what the reason for this was, however on the basis that it seems clear that no-one is sure what bands may or may not be useable or available over the next few years, is it worth re-addressing this for feasibility?
Howard
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Howard: We have wanted to stay away from a matrix, for reaons of complexity, and to keep things simple -- no schedule for users to mess with.
It's not explicitly stated in that way, but has been in some emails, and can be inferred from the all transponders on all the time objective stated in various things in the past. Ultimately, power budget will probably be the major determinant in such things.
73, Jim [email protected]
Howard Long wrote:
Folks,
I believe that I read somewhere recently (although I can't seem to find it now) that the concept of an IF switching matrix has been discounted. I don't know what the reason for this was, however on the basis that it seems clear that no-one is sure what bands may or may not be useable or available over the next few years, is it worth re-addressing this for feasibility?
Howard
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
I was thinking that there would be a switch between V and S dowlinks as each needs considerable power.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Sanford To: Howard Long Cc: 'EAGLE' Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 23:55 UTC Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Howard: We have wanted to stay away from a matrix, for reaons of complexity, and to keep things simple -- no schedule for users to mess with.
It's not explicitly stated in that way, but has been in some emails, and can be inferred from the all transponders on all the time objective stated in various things in the past. Ultimately, power budget will probably be the major determinant in such things.
73, Jim [email protected]
Howard Long wrote: Folks,
I believe that I read somewhere recently (although I can't seem to find it now) that the concept of an IF switching matrix has been discounted. I don't know what the reason for this was, however on the basis that it seems clear that no-one is sure what bands may or may not be useable or available over the next few years, is it worth re-addressing this for feasibility?
Howard
_______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
I am personally in favor of some type of switching arrangement. I am not sure why the Matrix on P3D got a bum rap. It was a little weird but it worked very well. A matrix gives us a lot of flexibility.
On Sep 22, 2006, at 8:26 PM, John B. Stephensen wrote:
I was thinking that there would be a switch between V and S dowlinks as each needs considerable power.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Sanford To: Howard Long Cc: 'EAGLE' Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 23:55 UTC Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Howard: We have wanted to stay away from a matrix, for reaons of complexity, and to keep things simple -- no schedule for users to mess with.
It's not explicitly stated in that way, but has been in some emails, and can be inferred from the all transponders on all the time objective stated in various things in the past. Ultimately, power budget will probably be the major determinant in such things.
73, Jim [email protected]
Howard Long wrote:
Folks,
I believe that I read somewhere recently (although I can't seem to find it now) that the concept of an IF switching matrix has been discounted. I don't know what the reason for this was, however on the basis that it seems clear that no-one is sure what bands may or may not be useable or available over the next few years, is it worth re-addressing this for feasibility?
Howard
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle _______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Short version: The matrix function is subsumed into the SDX modules.
To shed a bit more light, the SDX is designed with its own "matrix." There are two uplinks: U and L. The SDX can select either or both. It can send its output to V or S (or whatever the second downlink is now going to be) - or both.
At least, this is what we thought a year ago, and what we wrote up in the wiring harness report after the Colorado meeting last October.
73,
Lyle KK7P
The downlinks in Lyle's SDX block diagram are two-fold. S and V. The only change I would make for Eagle is to make both of them HELAPS. This might prevent both of them being used simultaneously as HELAPS but it might not. We might choose to do a "delay only" version of the HELAPS for the second transmitter.
I would like to suggest that we use Mirek's command receiver to feed the exact same command receive technology to be used for P3E and that is the SDR/FIQ channel on the IHU-3. The less work we have to repeat, the better. I believe we should have stand alone command receivers independent of the transponder antennas. I would like to hear from John and Mirek on this. Mirek's command receiver is nicely done.
Bob
Lyle Johnson wrote:
Short version: The matrix function is subsumed into the SDX modules.
To shed a bit more light, the SDX is designed with its own "matrix." There are two uplinks: U and L. The SDX can select either or both. It can send its output to V or S (or whatever the second downlink is now going to be) - or both.
At least, this is what we thought a year ago, and what we wrote up in the wiring harness report after the Colorado meeting last October.
73,
Lyle KK7P
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Robert McGwier wrote:
The downlinks in Lyle's SDX block diagram are two-fold. S and V. The only change I would make for Eagle is to make both of them HELAPS. This might prevent both of them being used simultaneously as HELAPS but it might not. We might choose to do a "delay only" version of the HELAPS for the second transmitter.
I would like to suggest that we use Mirek's command receiver to feed the exact same command receive technology to be used for P3E and that is the SDR/FIQ channel on the IHU-3. The less work we have to repeat, the better. I believe we should have stand alone command receivers independent of the transponder antennas. I would like to hear from John
Errrrr. Uhhhh. We might need antennas. I meant independent of the transponder receiver antennas.
and Mirek on this. Mirek's command receiver is nicely done.
Bob
Lyle Johnson wrote:
Short version: The matrix function is subsumed into the SDX modules.
To shed a bit more light, the SDX is designed with its own "matrix." There are two uplinks: U and L. The SDX can select either or both. It can send its output to V or S (or whatever the second downlink is now going to be) - or both.
At least, this is what we thought a year ago, and what we wrote up in the wiring harness report after the Colorado meeting last October.
73,
Lyle KK7P
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Robert McGwier wrote:
Robert McGwier wrote:
The downlinks in Lyle's SDX block diagram are two-fold. S and V. The only change I would make for Eagle is to make both of them HELAPS. This might prevent both of them being used simultaneously as HELAPS but it might not. We might choose to do a "delay only" version of the HELAPS for the second transmitter.
I would like to suggest that we use Mirek's command receiver to feed the exact same command receive technology to be used for P3E and that is the SDR/FIQ channel on the IHU-3. The less work we have to repeat, the better. I believe we should have stand alone command receivers independent of the transponder antennas. I would like to hear from John
Errrrr. Uhhhh. We might need antennas. I meant independent of the transponder receiver antennas.
I am definitely going to bed now. Independent of the transponder RECEIVERS. That only took 3 times to get right.
and Mirek on this. Mirek's command receiver is nicely done.
Bob
Bob:
In Mirek's design there is an L-band receiver PCB and a command receiver or command detector PCB mounted in one module. The two connect via the 10.7 MHz IF. Command detectors could be connected to both the U and L receivers.
Are you suggesting one L receiver connected to an omni antenna and used only for the command link and a second L receiver connected to a gain antenna and only used for the transponders? A smaller solution would be one L receiver with an antenna relay.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert McGwier" [email protected] To: "Robert McGwier" [email protected] Cc: "'EAGLE'" [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 04:25 UTC Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Robert McGwier wrote:
Robert McGwier wrote:
The downlinks in Lyle's SDX block diagram are two-fold. S and V. The only change I would make for Eagle is to make both of them HELAPS. This might prevent both of them being used simultaneously as HELAPS but it might not. We might choose to do a "delay only" version of the HELAPS for the second transmitter.
I would like to suggest that we use Mirek's command receiver to feed the exact same command receive technology to be used for P3E and that is the SDR/FIQ channel on the IHU-3. The less work we have to repeat, the better. I believe we should have stand alone command receivers independent of the transponder antennas. I would like to hear from John
Errrrr. Uhhhh. We might need antennas. I meant independent of the transponder receiver antennas.
I am definitely going to bed now. Independent of the transponder RECEIVERS. That only took 3 times to get right.
and Mirek on this. Mirek's command receiver is nicely done.
Bob
-- AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
John,
We should have omni antennas for perigee commanding. That tends to work when all else fails.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 12:10 PM To: Robert McGwier Cc: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Bob:
In Mirek's design there is an L-band receiver PCB and a command receiver or command detector PCB mounted in one module. The two connect via the 10.7 MHz
IF. Command detectors could be connected to both the U and L receivers.
Are you suggesting one L receiver connected to an omni antenna and used only
for the command link and a second L receiver connected to a gain antenna and
only used for the transponders? A smaller solution would be one L receiver with an antenna relay.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert McGwier" [email protected] To: "Robert McGwier" [email protected] Cc: "'EAGLE'" [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 04:25 UTC Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Robert McGwier wrote:
Robert McGwier wrote:
The downlinks in Lyle's SDX block diagram are two-fold. S and V. The only change I would make for Eagle is to make both of them HELAPS. This might prevent both of them being used simultaneously as HELAPS but it might not. We might choose to do a "delay only" version of the HELAPS for the second transmitter.
I would like to suggest that we use Mirek's command receiver to feed the exact same command receive technology to be used for P3E and that is the SDR/FIQ channel on the IHU-3. The less work we have to repeat, the better. I believe we should have stand alone command receivers independent of the transponder antennas. I would like to hear from John
Errrrr. Uhhhh. We might need antennas. I meant independent of the transponder receiver antennas.
I am definitely going to bed now. Independent of the transponder RECEIVERS. That only took 3 times to get right.
and Mirek on this. Mirek's command receiver is nicely done.
Bob
-- AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
_______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
I think that the L band receiver could be used for multiple purposes -- command, linear transponder uplink and digital transponder uplink. See the attached diagram.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Hambly (W2GPS)" [email protected] To: "'John B. Stephensen'" [email protected] Cc: "'EAGLE'" [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 16:15 UTC Subject: RE: [eagle] Re: IF switching
John,
We should have omni antennas for perigee commanding. That tends to work when all else fails.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 12:10 PM To: Robert McGwier Cc: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Bob:
In Mirek's design there is an L-band receiver PCB and a command receiver or command detector PCB mounted in one module. The two connect via the 10.7 MHz
IF. Command detectors could be connected to both the U and L receivers.
Are you suggesting one L receiver connected to an omni antenna and used only
for the command link and a second L receiver connected to a gain antenna and
only used for the transponders? A smaller solution would be one L receiver with an antenna relay.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert McGwier" [email protected] To: "Robert McGwier" [email protected] Cc: "'EAGLE'" [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 04:25 UTC Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Robert McGwier wrote:
Robert McGwier wrote:
The downlinks in Lyle's SDX block diagram are two-fold. S and V. The only change I would make for Eagle is to make both of them HELAPS. This might prevent both of them being used simultaneously as HELAPS but it might not. We might choose to do a "delay only" version of the HELAPS for the second transmitter.
I would like to suggest that we use Mirek's command receiver to feed the exact same command receive technology to be used for P3E and that is the SDR/FIQ channel on the IHU-3. The less work we have to repeat, the better. I believe we should have stand alone command receivers independent of the transponder antennas. I would like to hear from John
Errrrr. Uhhhh. We might need antennas. I meant independent of the transponder receiver antennas.
I am definitely going to bed now. Independent of the transponder RECEIVERS. That only took 3 times to get right.
and Mirek on this. Mirek's command receiver is nicely done.
Bob
-- AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
It seems to me that a more reliable design would avoid relays to switch between the Gain and the Omni antennas. It would be better to use directional couplers that feed the signals from both antennas to the receivers. Relays have to be commanded and can fail. A coupler is doing it's thing all the time.
On Sep 23, 2006, at 1:47 PM, John B. Stephensen wrote:
I think that the L band receiver could be used for multiple purposes -- command, linear transponder uplink and digital transponder uplink. See the attached diagram.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Hambly (W2GPS)" [email protected] To: "'John B. Stephensen'" [email protected] Cc: "'EAGLE'" [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 16:15 UTC Subject: RE: [eagle] Re: IF switching
John,
We should have omni antennas for perigee commanding. That tends to work when all else fails.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 12:10 PM To: Robert McGwier Cc: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Bob:
In Mirek's design there is an L-band receiver PCB and a command receiver or command detector PCB mounted in one module. The two connect via the 10.7 MHz
IF. Command detectors could be connected to both the U and L receivers.
Are you suggesting one L receiver connected to an omni antenna and used only
for the command link and a second L receiver connected to a gain antenna and
only used for the transponders? A smaller solution would be one L receiver with an antenna relay.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert McGwier" [email protected] To: "Robert McGwier" [email protected] Cc: "'EAGLE'" [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 04:25 UTC Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Robert McGwier wrote:
Robert McGwier wrote:
The downlinks in Lyle's SDX block diagram are two-fold. S and V. The only change I would make for Eagle is to make both of them HELAPS. This might prevent both of them being used simultaneously as HELAPS but it might not. We might choose to do a "delay only" version of the HELAPS for the second transmitter.
I would like to suggest that we use Mirek's command receiver to feed the exact same command receive technology to be used for P3E and that is the SDR/FIQ channel on the IHU-3. The less work we have to repeat, the better. I believe we should have stand alone command receivers independent of the transponder antennas. I would like to hear from John
Errrrr. Uhhhh. We might need antennas. I meant independent of the transponder receiver antennas.
I am definitely going to bed now. Independent of the transponder RECEIVERS. That only took 3 times to get right.
and Mirek on this. Mirek's command receiver is nicely done.
Bob
-- AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle <Transponder Architecture - L RX.pdf>
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Lou: Makes sense; please provide some more detail. A drawing and loss figures would be useful.
Thanks & 73, Jim [email protected]
Louis McFadin wrote:
It seems to me that a more reliable design would avoid relays to switch between the Gain and the Omni antennas. It would be better to use directional couplers that feed the signals from both antennas to the receivers. Relays have to be commanded and can fail. A coupler is doing it's thing all the time.
On Sep 23, 2006, at 1:47 PM, John B. Stephensen wrote:
I think that the L band receiver could be used for multiple purposes -- command, linear transponder uplink and digital transponder uplink. See the attached diagram.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Hambly (W2GPS)" [email protected] To: "'John B. Stephensen'" [email protected] Cc: "'EAGLE'" [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 16:15 UTC Subject: RE: [eagle] Re: IF switching
John,
We should have omni antennas for perigee commanding. That tends to work when all else fails.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 12:10 PM To: Robert McGwier Cc: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Bob:
In Mirek's design there is an L-band receiver PCB and a command receiver or command detector PCB mounted in one module. The two connect via the 10.7 MHz
IF. Command detectors could be connected to both the U and L receivers.
Are you suggesting one L receiver connected to an omni antenna and used only
for the command link and a second L receiver connected to a gain antenna and
only used for the transponders? A smaller solution would be one L receiver with an antenna relay.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert McGwier" [email protected] To: "Robert McGwier" [email protected] Cc: "'EAGLE'" [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 04:25 UTC Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Robert McGwier wrote:
Robert McGwier wrote:
The downlinks in Lyle's SDX block diagram are two-fold. S and V. The only change I would make for Eagle is to make both of them HELAPS. This might prevent both of them being used simultaneously as HELAPS but it might not. We might choose to do a "delay only" version of the HELAPS for the second transmitter.
I would like to suggest that we use Mirek's command receiver to feed the exact same command receive technology to be used for P3E and that is the SDR/FIQ channel on the IHU-3. The less work we have to repeat, the better. I believe we should have stand alone command receivers independent of the transponder antennas. I would like to hear from John
Errrrr. Uhhhh. We might need antennas. I meant independent of the transponder receiver antennas.
I am definitely going to bed now. Independent of the transponder RECEIVERS. That only took 3 times to get right.
and Mirek on this. Mirek's command receiver is nicely done.
Bob
-- AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." - Einstein
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle <Transponder Architecture - L RX.pdf>
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Lyle,
I would like to see the ability to have independent U/V and L/S transponders operational simultaneously. If a single SDX lacks the power to accommodate this then I think we should consider two SDXs.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lyle Johnson Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:19 PM To: Jim Sanford Cc: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Short version: The matrix function is subsumed into the SDX modules.
To shed a bit more light, the SDX is designed with its own "matrix." There are two uplinks: U and L. The SDX can select either or both. It can send its output to V or S (or whatever the second downlink is now going to be) - or both.
At least, this is what we thought a year ago, and what we wrote up in the wiring harness report after the Colorado meeting last October.
73,
Lyle KK7P
_______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Hello Rick!
I would like to see the ability to have independent U/V and L/S transponders operational simultaneously. If a single SDX lacks the power to accommodate this then I think we should consider two SDXs.
Two SDXes have always been the baseline. Again, this is in the report from Oct in Colorado last year. The spacecraft has completely changed since then, of course, but we listed two SDX modules and the wiring for them.
73,
Lyle KK7P
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lyle Johnson Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:19 PM To: Jim Sanford Cc: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Short version: The matrix function is subsumed into the SDX modules.
To shed a bit more light, the SDX is designed with its own "matrix." There are two uplinks: U and L. The SDX can select either or both. It can send its output to V or S (or whatever the second downlink is now going to be) - or both.
At least, this is what we thought a year ago, and what we wrote up in the wiring harness report after the Colorado meeting last October.
73,
Lyle KK7P
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
We also need two SDXs in case one fails.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Hambly (W2GPS)" [email protected] To: "'Lyle Johnson'" [email protected] Cc: "'EAGLE'" [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 12:26 UTC Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Lyle,
I would like to see the ability to have independent U/V and L/S transponders operational simultaneously. If a single SDX lacks the power to accommodate this then I think we should consider two SDXs.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lyle Johnson Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:19 PM To: Jim Sanford Cc: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Short version: The matrix function is subsumed into the SDX modules.
To shed a bit more light, the SDX is designed with its own "matrix." There are two uplinks: U and L. The SDX can select either or both. It can send its output to V or S (or whatever the second downlink is now going to be) - or both.
At least, this is what we thought a year ago, and what we wrote up in the wiring harness report after the Colorado meeting last October.
73,
Lyle KK7P
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Hello John!
We also need two SDXs in case one fails.
QSL
This was always the plan. See docs from the Oct 2005 meeting in Colorado.
73,
Lyle KK7P
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Hambly (W2GPS)" [email protected] To: "'Lyle Johnson'" [email protected] Cc: "'EAGLE'" [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 12:26 UTC Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Lyle,
I would like to see the ability to have independent U/V and L/S transponders operational simultaneously. If a single SDX lacks the power to accommodate this then I think we should consider two SDXs.
Rick W2GPS AMSAT LM2232
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lyle Johnson Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:19 PM To: Jim Sanford Cc: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] Re: IF switching
Short version: The matrix function is subsumed into the SDX modules.
To shed a bit more light, the SDX is designed with its own "matrix." There are two uplinks: U and L. The SDX can select either or both. It can send its output to V or S (or whatever the second downlink is now going to be) - or both.
At least, this is what we thought a year ago, and what we wrote up in the wiring harness report after the Colorado meeting last October.
73,
Lyle KK7P
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
participants (7)
-
Howard Long -
Jim Sanford -
John B. Stephensen -
Louis McFadin -
Lyle Johnson -
Rick Hambly (W2GPS) -
Robert McGwier