Re: further late reply regarding ISS simplex
It sounds like your issue is not that split frequencies are bad but that multiple uplinks makes it difficult for the crew to listen to one uplink. ITU region regulations for ground station operations are the culprit. Space has no borders but Earth does so have of the problem is getting everyone to agree on a single uplink. Not everyone in the world has the same frequency allocations nor do they use the available spectrum in their region the same way.
The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the number of callers in the 2000 km wide footprint. The station has to listen to all of them. Since you can't hear all of them, it becomes difficult to know when someone is talking or not without guidance from the station operator.
In the MIR days, the crew did not have the luxury of near full time satellite communication that provides voice, email communication and an IP phone that lets them make phone calls. If the MIR crew wanted to talk to someone, they needed to use the ham radio or the Russian VHF space to ground system. The ISS crew has plenty of options to choose from when they want to communicate and it depends on the personality of the crew as to which ones get utilized.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org [mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] further late reply regarding ISS simplex
Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
Despite support of the present frequency scheme for the ISS I still wish to disagree with the policy of split operation with different phone uplinks.
Back when the MIR was up, the russians operated simplex and left the radio on to listen for callers. On several occasions, I called the MIR according to my tracking program and was rewarded several times with a response.
With two different uplink frequencies, the astronauts are less inclined to leave the radio on to listen for callers.
When there were several callers here on simplex responding to a CQ call from the MIR, we acted civilized and took turns and everyone made contacts so I dont buy the absolute need for split operation. Besides, how many callers could there be within 20 or 30 miles up to the horizon.
We've had years of robot like amateur radio on the ISS. How about loosening the ties!
Thanks for the soapbox..... pat
---- Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
hello kenneth- the point I was making is that the ISS should be operating simplex. pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
It sounds like your issue is not that split frequencies are bad but that multiple uplinks makes it difficult for the crew to listen to one uplink. ITU region regulations for ground station operations are the culprit. Space has no borders but Earth does so have of the problem is getting everyone to agree on a single uplink. Not everyone in the world has the same frequency allocations nor do they use the available spectrum in their region the same way.
The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the number of callers in the 2000 km wide footprint. The station has to listen to all of them. Since you can't hear all of them, it becomes difficult to know when someone is talking or not without guidance from the station operator.
In the MIR days, the crew did not have the luxury of near full time satellite communication that provides voice, email communication and an IP phone that lets them make phone calls. If the MIR crew wanted to talk to someone, they needed to use the ham radio or the Russian VHF space to ground system. The ISS crew has plenty of options to choose from when they want to communicate and it depends on the personality of the crew as to which ones get utilized.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org [mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] further late reply regarding ISS simplex
Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
Despite support of the present frequency scheme for the ISS I still wish to disagree with the policy of split operation with different phone uplinks.
Back when the MIR was up, the russians operated simplex and left the radio on to listen for callers. On several occasions, I called the MIR according to my tracking program and was rewarded several times with a response.
With two different uplink frequencies, the astronauts are less inclined to leave the radio on to listen for callers.
When there were several callers here on simplex responding to a CQ call from the MIR, we acted civilized and took turns and everyone made contacts so I dont buy the absolute need for split operation. Besides, how many callers could there be within 20 or 30 miles up to the horizon.
We've had years of robot like amateur radio on the ISS. How about loosening the ties!
Thanks for the soapbox..... pat
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling whether its split or simplex operation so why not make it simplex!
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
It sounds like your issue is not that split frequencies are bad but that multiple uplinks makes it difficult for the crew to listen to one uplink. ITU region regulations for ground station operations are the culprit. Space has no borders but Earth does so have of the problem is getting everyone to agree on a single uplink. Not everyone in the world has the same frequency allocations nor do they use the available spectrum in their region the same way.
The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the number of callers in the 2000 km wide footprint. The station has to listen to all of them. Since you can't hear all of them, it becomes difficult to know when someone is talking or not without guidance from the station operator.
In the MIR days, the crew did not have the luxury of near full time satellite communication that provides voice, email communication and an IP phone that lets them make phone calls. If the MIR crew wanted to talk to someone, they needed to use the ham radio or the Russian VHF space to ground system. The ISS crew has plenty of options to choose from when they want to communicate and it depends on the personality of the crew as to which ones get utilized.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org [mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] further late reply regarding ISS simplex
Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
Despite support of the present frequency scheme for the ISS I still wish to disagree with the policy of split operation with different phone uplinks.
Back when the MIR was up, the russians operated simplex and left the radio on to listen for callers. On several occasions, I called the MIR according to my tracking program and was rewarded several times with a response.
With two different uplink frequencies, the astronauts are less inclined to leave the radio on to listen for callers.
When there were several callers here on simplex responding to a CQ call from the MIR, we acted civilized and took turns and everyone made contacts so I dont buy the absolute need for split operation. Besides, how many callers could there be within 20 or 30 miles up to the horizon.
We've had years of robot like amateur radio on the ISS. How about loosening the ties!
Thanks for the soapbox..... pat
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling whether its split or simplex operation so why not make it
simplex!
Because many of us live near inconsiderate operators that step all Over the downlink by transmitting on the uplink. Simplex is just not a good idea. The downlink should be separate from the uplink so that everyone can hear the downlink without interfererence from uplink stations.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org [mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:43 PM To: Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] Ransom; bruninga@usna.edu Cc: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] Re: further late reply regarding ISS simplex
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling whether its split or simplex operation so why not make it
simplex!
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
It sounds like your issue is not that split frequencies are
bad but
that multiple uplinks makes it difficult for the crew to
listen to one
uplink. ITU region regulations for ground station
operations are the
culprit. Space has no borders but Earth does so have of the
problem is
getting everyone to agree on a single uplink. Not everyone
in the
world has the same frequency allocations nor do they use
the available
spectrum in their region the same way.
The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the number of callers
in the 2000
km wide footprint. The station has to listen to all of
them. Since you
can't hear all of them, it becomes difficult to know when
someone is
talking or not without guidance from the station operator.
In the MIR days, the crew did not have the luxury of near
full time
satellite communication that provides voice, email
communication and
an IP phone that lets them make phone calls. If the MIR
crew wanted to
talk to someone, they needed to use the ham radio or the
Russian VHF
space to ground system. The ISS crew has plenty of options
to choose
from when they want to communicate and it depends on the
personality
of the crew as to which ones get utilized.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org
[mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On
Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] further late reply regarding ISS simplex
Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
Despite support of the present frequency scheme for the ISS
I still
wish to disagree with the policy of split operation with
different
phone uplinks.
Back when the MIR was up, the russians operated simplex and
left the
radio on to listen for callers. On several occasions, I called the MIR according to my
tracking
program and was rewarded several times with a response.
With two different uplink frequencies, the astronauts are
less
inclined to leave the radio on to listen for callers.
When there were several callers here on simplex responding
to a CQ
call from the MIR, we acted civilized and took turns and
everyone made
contacts so I dont buy the absolute need for split
operation.
Besides, how many callers could there be within 20 or 30
miles up to
the horizon.
We've had years of robot like amateur radio on the ISS. How
about
loosening the ties!
Thanks for the soapbox..... pat
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of
AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Hi bob- You must live in a bad area. My fellow amateurs always quieted down when they heard an astronaut calling someone. Seems like you and NASA are pretty set in your ways. Dont you think its time to let some others have their way with the space program? I remeber an joke I heard years ago; NASA spent a million dollars to develop a pen that would write in zero gravity...... the russians used pencils. I see no open-mindedness here. pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Robert Bruninga wrote:
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling whether its split or simplex operation so why not make it
simplex!
Because many of us live near inconsiderate operators that step all Over the downlink by transmitting on the uplink. Simplex is just not a good idea. The downlink should be separate from the uplink so that everyone can hear the downlink without interfererence from uplink stations.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org [mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:43 PM To: Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] Ransom; bruninga@usna.edu Cc: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] Re: further late reply regarding ISS simplex
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling whether its split or simplex operation so why not make it
simplex!
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
It sounds like your issue is not that split frequencies are
bad but
that multiple uplinks makes it difficult for the crew to
listen to one
uplink. ITU region regulations for ground station
operations are the
culprit. Space has no borders but Earth does so have of the
problem is
getting everyone to agree on a single uplink. Not everyone
in the
world has the same frequency allocations nor do they use
the available
spectrum in their region the same way.
The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the number of callers
in the 2000
km wide footprint. The station has to listen to all of
them. Since you
can't hear all of them, it becomes difficult to know when
someone is
talking or not without guidance from the station operator.
In the MIR days, the crew did not have the luxury of near
full time
satellite communication that provides voice, email
communication and
an IP phone that lets them make phone calls. If the MIR
crew wanted to
talk to someone, they needed to use the ham radio or the
Russian VHF
space to ground system. The ISS crew has plenty of options
to choose
from when they want to communicate and it depends on the
personality
of the crew as to which ones get utilized.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org
[mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On
Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] further late reply regarding ISS simplex
Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
Despite support of the present frequency scheme for the ISS
I still
wish to disagree with the policy of split operation with
different
phone uplinks.
Back when the MIR was up, the russians operated simplex and
left the
radio on to listen for callers. On several occasions, I called the MIR according to my
tracking
program and was rewarded several times with a response.
With two different uplink frequencies, the astronauts are
less
inclined to leave the radio on to listen for callers.
When there were several callers here on simplex responding
to a CQ
call from the MIR, we acted civilized and took turns and
everyone made
contacts so I dont buy the absolute need for split
operation.
Besides, how many callers could there be within 20 or 30
miles up to
the horizon.
We've had years of robot like amateur radio on the ISS. How
about
loosening the ties!
Thanks for the soapbox..... pat
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of
AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Actually, the NASA pen story is a myth.
See http://www.thespacereview.com/article/613/1 or http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/the_million_dollar_space_...
And working split under pileup conditions is a pretty standard and proven radio operating technique.
73, Bob K0NR
McGrane wrote:
Hi bob- You must live in a bad area. My fellow amateurs always quieted down when they heard an astronaut calling someone. Seems like you and NASA are pretty set in your ways. Dont you think its time to let some others have their way with the space program? I remeber an joke I heard years ago; NASA spent a million dollars to develop a pen that would write in zero gravity...... the russians used pencils. I see no open-mindedness here. pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Robert Bruninga wrote:
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling whether its split or simplex operation so why not make it
simplex!
Because many of us live near inconsiderate operators that step all Over the downlink by transmitting on the uplink. Simplex is just not a good idea. The downlink should be separate from the uplink so that everyone can hear the downlink without interfererence from uplink stations.
Bob
Reading comprehension seems to be low here... I wrote that it was a joke pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Bob Witte K0NR wrote:
Actually, the NASA pen story is a myth.
See http://www.thespacereview.com/article/613/1 or http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/the_million_dollar_space_...
And working split under pileup conditions is a pretty standard and proven radio operating technique.
73, Bob K0NR
McGrane wrote:
Hi bob- You must live in a bad area. My fellow amateurs always quieted down when they heard an astronaut calling someone. Seems like you and NASA are pretty set in your ways. Dont you think its time to let some others have their way with the space program? I remeber an joke I heard years ago; NASA spent a million dollars to develop a pen that would write in zero gravity...... the russians used pencils. I see no open-mindedness here. pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Robert Bruninga wrote:
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling whether its split or simplex operation so why not make it
simplex!
Because many of us live near inconsiderate operators that step all Over the downlink by transmitting on the uplink. Simplex is just not a good idea. The downlink should be separate from the uplink so that everyone can hear the downlink without interfererence from uplink stations.
Bob
Who did you have in mind to "have their way with the space program"? Doesn't seem to be to many other folks running ham radio in their manned space programs.
One group is the Russians who have a lot to do with ham radio being on ISS. It is after all not located in the USA segement but the Russian Segment of the ISS.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
Hi bob- You must live in a bad area. My fellow amateurs always quieted down when they heard an astronaut calling someone. Seems like you and NASA are pretty set in your ways. Dont you think its time to let some others have their way with the space program? I remeber an joke I heard years ago; NASA spent a million dollars to develop a pen that would write in zero gravity...... the russians used pencils. I see no open-mindedness here. pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Robert Bruninga wrote:
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone
calling
whether its split or simplex operation so why
not make it
simplex!
Because many of us live near inconsiderate
operators that step
all Over the downlink by transmitting on the uplink.
Simplex is
just not a good idea. The downlink should be separate from the uplink so
that everyone
can hear the downlink without interfererence from
uplink
stations.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org [mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf Of
McGrane
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:43 PM To: Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] Ransom;
bruninga@usna.edu
Cc: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] Re: further late reply
regarding ISS simplex
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone
calling
whether its split or simplex operation so why
not make it
simplex!
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G.
(JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
It sounds like your issue is not that split
frequencies are
bad but
that multiple uplinks makes it difficult for
the crew to
listen to one
uplink. ITU region regulations for ground
station
operations are the
culprit. Space has no borders but Earth does
so have of the
problem is
getting everyone to agree on a single uplink.
Not everyone
in the
world has the same frequency allocations nor
do they use
the available
spectrum in their region the same way.
The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the
number of callers
in the 2000
km wide footprint. The station has to listen
to all of
them. Since you
can't hear all of them, it becomes difficult
to know when
someone is
talking or not without guidance from the
station operator.
In the MIR days, the crew did not have the
luxury of near
full time
satellite communication that provides voice,
communication and
an IP phone that lets them make phone calls.
If the MIR
crew wanted to
talk to someone, they needed to use the ham
radio or the
Russian VHF
space to ground system. The ISS crew has
plenty of options
to choose
from when they want to communicate and it
depends on the
personality
of the crew as to which ones get utilized.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org
[mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On
Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] further late reply regarding
ISS simplex
Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
Despite support of the present frequency
scheme for the ISS
I still
wish to disagree with the policy of split
operation with
different
phone uplinks.
Back when the MIR was up, the russians
operated simplex and
left the
radio on to listen for callers. On several occasions, I called the MIR
according to my
tracking
program and was rewarded several times with a
response.
With two different uplink frequencies, the
astronauts are
less
inclined to leave the radio on to listen for
callers.
When there were several callers here on
simplex responding
to a CQ
call from the MIR, we acted civilized and took
turns and
everyone made
contacts so I dont buy the absolute need for
split
operation.
Besides, how many callers could there be
within 20 or 30
miles up to
the horizon.
We've had years of robot like amateur radio on
the ISS. How
about
loosening the ties!
Thanks for the soapbox..... pat
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG
courtesy of
AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy
of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Then take it up with the russians and get their opinion. bantor the idea about. As it is, theres very little phone activity, and maybe, just maybe, if we call them, they might pick up the mike. Thanks if you consider the change. pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Kenneth, N5VHO wrote:
Who did you have in mind to "have their way with the space program"? Doesn't seem to be to many other folks running ham radio in their manned space programs.
One group is the Russians who have a lot to do with ham radio being on ISS. It is after all not located in the USA segement but the Russian Segment of the ISS.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
Hi bob- You must live in a bad area. My fellow amateurs always quieted down when they heard an astronaut calling someone. Seems like you and NASA are pretty set in your ways. Dont you think its time to let some others have their way with the space program? I remeber an joke I heard years ago; NASA spent a million dollars to develop a pen that would write in zero gravity...... the russians used pencils. I see no open-mindedness here. pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Robert Bruninga wrote:
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone
calling
whether its split or simplex operation so why
not make it
simplex!
Because many of us live near inconsiderate
operators that step
all Over the downlink by transmitting on the uplink.
Simplex is
just not a good idea. The downlink should be separate from the uplink so
that everyone
can hear the downlink without interfererence from
uplink
stations.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org [mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf Of
McGrane
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:43 PM To: Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] Ransom;
bruninga@usna.edu
Cc: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] Re: further late reply
regarding ISS simplex
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone
calling
whether its split or simplex operation so why
not make it
simplex!
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G.
(JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
It sounds like your issue is not that split
frequencies are
bad but
that multiple uplinks makes it difficult for
the crew to
listen to one
uplink. ITU region regulations for ground
station
operations are the
culprit. Space has no borders but Earth does
so have of the
problem is
getting everyone to agree on a single uplink.
Not everyone
in the
world has the same frequency allocations nor
do they use
the available
spectrum in their region the same way.
The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the
number of callers
in the 2000
km wide footprint. The station has to listen
to all of
them. Since you
can't hear all of them, it becomes difficult
to know when
someone is
talking or not without guidance from the
station operator.
In the MIR days, the crew did not have the
luxury of near
full time
satellite communication that provides voice,
communication and
an IP phone that lets them make phone calls.
If the MIR
crew wanted to
talk to someone, they needed to use the ham
radio or the
Russian VHF
space to ground system. The ISS crew has
plenty of options
to choose
from when they want to communicate and it
depends on the
personality
of the crew as to which ones get utilized.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org
[mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On
Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] further late reply regarding
ISS simplex
Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
Despite support of the present frequency
scheme for the ISS
I still
wish to disagree with the policy of split
operation with
different
phone uplinks.
Back when the MIR was up, the russians
operated simplex and
left the
radio on to listen for callers. On several occasions, I called the MIR
according to my
tracking
program and was rewarded several times with a
response.
With two different uplink frequencies, the
astronauts are
less
inclined to leave the radio on to listen for
callers.
When there were several callers here on
simplex responding
to a CQ
call from the MIR, we acted civilized and took
turns and
everyone made
contacts so I dont buy the absolute need for
split
operation.
Besides, how many callers could there be
within 20 or 30
miles up to
the horizon.
We've had years of robot like amateur radio on
the ISS. How
about
loosening the ties!
Thanks for the soapbox..... pat
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG
courtesy of
AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy
of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Oh, I forgot that we do have a simplex frequency the ISS uses. 437.55. Problem solved.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
Then take it up with the russians and get their opinion. bantor the idea about. As it is, theres very little phone activity, and maybe, just maybe, if we call them, they might pick up the mike. Thanks if you consider the change. pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Kenneth, N5VHO wrote:
Who did you have in mind to "have their way with
the
space program"? Doesn't seem to be to many other
folks
running ham radio in their manned space programs.
One group is the Russians who have a lot to do
with
ham radio being on ISS. It is after all not
located in
the USA segement but the Russian Segment of the
ISS.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
Hi bob- You must live in a bad area. My fellow amateurs always quieted down when they heard an astronaut calling
someone.
Seems like you and NASA are pretty set in your ways. Dont you think its
time
to let some others have their way with the space program? I remeber an joke I heard years ago; NASA spent
a
million dollars to develop a pen that would write in zero
gravity......
the russians used pencils. I see no open-mindedness here. pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Robert Bruninga wrote:
Hello again- the astronauts will hear
everyone
calling
whether its split or simplex operation so
why
not make it
simplex!
Because many of us live near inconsiderate
operators that step
all Over the downlink by transmitting on the
uplink.
Simplex is
just not a good idea. The downlink should be separate from the
uplink so
that everyone
can hear the downlink without interfererence
from
uplink
stations.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org [mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf
Of
McGrane
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:43 PM To: Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] Ransom;
bruninga@usna.edu
Cc: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] Re: further late reply
regarding ISS simplex
Hello again- the astronauts will hear
everyone
calling
whether its split or simplex operation so
why
not make it
simplex!
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G.
(JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
It sounds like your issue is not that
split
frequencies are
bad but
that multiple uplinks makes it difficult
for
the crew to
listen to one
uplink. ITU region regulations for ground
station
operations are the
culprit. Space has no borders but Earth
does
so have of the
problem is
getting everyone to agree on a single
uplink.
Not everyone
in the
world has the same frequency allocations
nor
do they use
the available
spectrum in their region the same way.
The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the
number of callers
in the 2000
km wide footprint. The station has to
listen
to all of
them. Since you
can't hear all of them, it becomes
difficult
to know when
someone is
talking or not without guidance from the
station operator.
In the MIR days, the crew did not have the
luxury of near
full time
satellite communication that provides
voice,
communication and
an IP phone that lets them make phone
calls.
If the MIR
crew wanted to
talk to someone, they needed to use the
ham
radio or the
Russian VHF
space to ground system. The ISS crew has
plenty of options
to choose
from when they want to communicate and it
depends on the
personality
of the crew as to which ones get utilized.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org
[mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On
Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] further late reply
regarding
ISS simplex
Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
Despite support of the present frequency
scheme for the ISS
I still
wish to disagree with the policy of split
operation with
different
phone uplinks.
Back when the MIR was up, the russians
operated simplex and
left the
radio on to listen for callers. On several occasions, I called the MIR
according to my
tracking
program and was rewarded several times
with a
response.
With two different uplink frequencies, the
astronauts are
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
good try but no cigar! I'm writing about 2 meters VHF where there is very little doppler and higher power. But with all due respect, where is the UHF radio located and is it left on?
Maybe we should make some coffee HUH?
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Kenneth, N5VHO wrote:
Oh, I forgot that we do have a simplex frequency the ISS uses. 437.55. Problem solved.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
Then take it up with the russians and get their opinion. bantor the idea about. As it is, theres very little phone activity, and maybe, just maybe, if we call them, they might pick up the mike. Thanks if you consider the change. pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Kenneth, N5VHO wrote:
Who did you have in mind to "have their way with
the
space program"? Doesn't seem to be to many other
folks
running ham radio in their manned space programs.
One group is the Russians who have a lot to do
with
ham radio being on ISS. It is after all not
located in
the USA segement but the Russian Segment of the
ISS.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
Hi bob- You must live in a bad area. My fellow amateurs always quieted down when they heard an astronaut calling
someone.
Seems like you and NASA are pretty set in your ways. Dont you think its
time
to let some others have their way with the space program? I remeber an joke I heard years ago; NASA spent
a
million dollars to develop a pen that would write in zero
gravity......
the russians used pencils. I see no open-mindedness here. pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Robert Bruninga wrote:
Hello again- the astronauts will hear
everyone
calling
whether its split or simplex operation so
why
not make it
simplex!
Because many of us live near inconsiderate
operators that step
all Over the downlink by transmitting on the
uplink.
Simplex is
just not a good idea. The downlink should be separate from the
uplink so
that everyone
can hear the downlink without interfererence
from
uplink
stations.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org [mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf
Of
McGrane
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:43 PM To: Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] Ransom;
bruninga@usna.edu
Cc: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] Re: further late reply
regarding ISS simplex
Hello again- the astronauts will hear
everyone
calling
whether its split or simplex operation so
why
not make it
simplex!
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G.
(JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
> It sounds like your issue is not that
split
frequencies are
bad but
> that multiple uplinks makes it difficult
for
the crew to
listen to one > uplink. ITU region regulations for ground
station
operations are the > culprit. Space has no borders but Earth
does
so have of the
problem is > getting everyone to agree on a single
uplink.
Not everyone
in the
> world has the same frequency allocations
nor
do they use
the available > spectrum in their region the same way. > > The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the
number of callers
in the 2000 > km wide footprint. The station has to
listen
to all of
them. Since you > can't hear all of them, it becomes
difficult
to know when
someone is > talking or not without guidance from the
station operator.
> > In the MIR days, the crew did not have the
luxury of near
full time
> satellite communication that provides
voice,
communication and > an IP phone that lets them make phone
calls.
If the MIR
crew wanted to > talk to someone, they needed to use the
ham
radio or the
Russian VHF > space to ground system. The ISS crew has
plenty of options
to choose > from when they want to communicate and it
depends on the
personality > of the crew as to which ones get utilized. > > Kenneth - N5VHO > > -----Original Message----- > From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org
[mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On
> Behalf Of McGrane > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM > To: Manned space BBS > Subject: [sarex] further late reply
regarding
ISS simplex
> > > Greetings from patrick N2OEQ > > Despite support of the present frequency
scheme for the ISS
I still
> wish to disagree with the policy of split
operation with
different
> phone uplinks. > > Back when the MIR was up, the russians
operated simplex and
left the > radio on to listen for callers. > On several occasions, I called the MIR
according to my
tracking
> program and was rewarded several times
with a
response.
> > With two different uplink frequencies, the
astronauts are
=== message truncated ===
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
The UHF is located next to the VHF radio (Kenwood D700 is dual band).
I still don't see how one frequency will make the crew leave their satellite communications, email, IP phone, DVD movies, photography, book reading.... If they have no interest in talking on the radio then they just turn the volume down on the radio. If they are interested, then they become sort of rare DX and operate in the accepted split fashion.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
good try but no cigar! I'm writing about 2 meters VHF where there is very little doppler and higher power. But with all due respect, where is the UHF radio located and is it left on?
Maybe we should make some coffee HUH?
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Kenneth, N5VHO wrote:
Oh, I forgot that we do have a simplex frequency
the
ISS uses. 437.55. Problem solved.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
Then take it up with the russians and get their opinion. bantor the idea about. As it is, theres very
little
phone activity, and maybe, just maybe, if we call them, they might
pick
up the mike. Thanks if you consider the change. pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Kenneth, N5VHO wrote:
Who did you have in mind to "have their way
with
the
space program"? Doesn't seem to be to many
other
folks
running ham radio in their manned space
programs.
One group is the Russians who have a lot to do
with
ham radio being on ISS. It is after all not
located in
the USA segement but the Russian Segment of
the
ISS.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us
wrote:
Hi bob- You must live in a bad area. My
fellow
amateurs always quieted down when they heard an astronaut calling
someone.
Seems like you and NASA are pretty set in your ways. Dont you think
its
time
to let some others have their way with the space program? I remeber an joke I heard years ago; NASA
spent
a
million dollars to develop a pen that would write in zero
gravity......
the russians used pencils. I see no open-mindedness here. pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Robert Bruninga wrote:
> Hello again- the astronauts will hear
everyone
calling
> whether its split or simplex operation
so
why
not make it
simplex!
Because many of us live near inconsiderate
operators that step
all Over the downlink by transmitting on the
uplink.
Simplex is
just not a good idea. The downlink should be separate from the
uplink so
that everyone
can hear the downlink without
interfererence
from
uplink
stations.
Bob
> -----Original Message----- > From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org > [mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On
Behalf
Of
McGrane
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:43 PM > To: Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] Ransom;
bruninga@usna.edu
> Cc: Manned space BBS > Subject: [sarex] Re: further late reply
regarding ISS simplex
> > > Hello again- the astronauts will hear
everyone
calling
> whether its split or simplex operation
so
why
not make it
simplex! > > pat > > > On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G.
(JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
> > > It sounds like your issue is not that
split
frequencies are
bad but > > that multiple uplinks makes it
difficult
for
the crew to
> listen to one > > uplink. ITU region regulations for
ground
station
> operations are the > > culprit. Space has no borders but
Earth
does
so have of the
> problem is > > getting everyone to agree on a single
uplink.
Not everyone
in the > > world has the same frequency
allocations
nor
do they use
> the available > > spectrum in their region the same way. > > > > The issue is not the 20-30 miles but
the
number of callers
> in the 2000 > > km wide footprint. The station has to
listen
to all of
> them. Since you > > can't hear all of them, it becomes
difficult
to know when
> someone is > > talking or not without guidance from
the
station operator.
> > > > In the MIR days, the crew did not have
the
luxury of near
full time > > satellite communication that provides
voice,
> communication and > > an IP phone that lets them make phone
calls.
If the MIR
> crew wanted to > > talk to someone, they needed to use
the
ham
radio or the
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
From: McGrane [mailto:tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us] Hi bob- You must live in a bad area. My fellow amateurs always quieted down when they heard an astronaut calling someone.
And how can you hear the astronaut on 145.800 if you or anyone else in your area is transmitting on 145.800? Simplex when one end can hear millions of miles of coverage and hundreds of users and the other end can only hear himself just simply does not work.
Seems like you and NASA are pretty set in your ways.
No, ham radio and anyone who stops to think about it will realize that there is absolutely no advantage to simplex n this unbalanced situation. HAM radio learned that decades ago just working DX.
Dont you think its time to let some others have their way with the space program? I remeber an joke I heard years ago; NASA spent a million dollars to develop a pen that would write in zero gravity...... the russians used pencils. I see no open-mindedness here. pat
I hope what you see is common sense by those who undrstand the value of operating split in an unblanaced situation.
Bob
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Robert Bruninga wrote:
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling
whether its
split or simplex operation so why not make it
simplex!
Because many of us live near inconsiderate operators that
step all
Over the downlink by transmitting on the uplink. Simplex
is just not
a good idea. The downlink should be separate from the uplink so that
everyone can
hear the downlink without interfererence from uplink
stations.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org [mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:43 PM To: Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] Ransom; bruninga@usna.edu Cc: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] Re: further late reply regarding ISS
simplex
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling
whether its
split or simplex operation so why not make it
simplex!
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR]
wrote:
It sounds like your issue is not that split frequencies
are
bad but
that multiple uplinks makes it difficult for the crew to
listen to one
uplink. ITU region regulations for ground station
operations are the
culprit. Space has no borders but Earth does so have of
the
problem is
getting everyone to agree on a single uplink. Not
everyone
in the
world has the same frequency allocations nor do they use
the available
spectrum in their region the same way.
The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the number of
callers
in the 2000
km wide footprint. The station has to listen to all of
them. Since you
can't hear all of them, it becomes difficult to know
when
someone is
talking or not without guidance from the station
operator.
In the MIR days, the crew did not have the luxury of
near
full time
satellite communication that provides voice, email
communication and
an IP phone that lets them make phone calls. If the MIR
crew wanted to
talk to someone, they needed to use the ham radio or the
Russian VHF
space to ground system. The ISS crew has plenty of
options
to choose
from when they want to communicate and it depends on the
personality
of the crew as to which ones get utilized.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org
[mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On
Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] further late reply regarding ISS
simplex
Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
Despite support of the present frequency scheme for the
ISS
I still
wish to disagree with the policy of split operation with
different
phone uplinks.
Back when the MIR was up, the russians operated simplex
and
left the
radio on to listen for callers. On several occasions, I called the MIR according to my
tracking
program and was rewarded several times with a response.
With two different uplink frequencies, the astronauts
are
less
inclined to leave the radio on to listen for callers.
When there were several callers here on simplex
responding
to a CQ
call from the MIR, we acted civilized and took turns and
everyone made
contacts so I dont buy the absolute need for split
operation.
Besides, how many callers could there be within 20 or 30
miles up to
the horizon.
We've had years of robot like amateur radio on the ISS.
How
about
loosening the ties!
Thanks for the soapbox..... pat
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of
AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of
AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
No, the reality is that there are many who set up automated packet stations to digipeat through the station. And, their stations continue running when the crew comes on. With the opportunities to chat with the crew short and rare, the best approach is to have different frequencies for up and downlinks, and different also for digital and phone. That's what they have now.
Greg KO6TH.
----Original Message Follows---- From: McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us To: Robert Bruninga bruninga@usna.edu CC: "'Manned space BBS'" sarex@AMSAT.Org Subject: [sarex] Re: further late reply regarding ISS simplex Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:55:13 -0400 (EDT)
Hi bob- You must live in a bad area. My fellow amateurs always quieted down when they heard an astronaut calling someone. Seems like you and NASA are pretty set in your ways. Dont you think its time to let some others have their way with the space program? I remeber an joke I heard years ago; NASA spent a million dollars to develop a pen that would write in zero gravity...... the russians used pencils. I see no open-mindedness here. pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Robert Bruninga wrote:
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling whether its split or simplex operation so why not make it
simplex!
Because many of us live near inconsiderate operators that step all Over the downlink by transmitting on the uplink. Simplex is just not a good idea. The downlink should be separate from the uplink so that everyone can hear the downlink without interfererence from uplink stations.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org [mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:43 PM To: Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] Ransom; bruninga@usna.edu Cc: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] Re: further late reply regarding ISS simplex
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling whether its split or simplex operation so why not make it
simplex!
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
It sounds like your issue is not that split frequencies are
bad but
that multiple uplinks makes it difficult for the crew to
listen to one
uplink. ITU region regulations for ground station
operations are the
culprit. Space has no borders but Earth does so have of the
problem is
getting everyone to agree on a single uplink. Not everyone
in the
world has the same frequency allocations nor do they use
the available
spectrum in their region the same way.
The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the number of callers
in the 2000
km wide footprint. The station has to listen to all of
them. Since you
can't hear all of them, it becomes difficult to know when
someone is
talking or not without guidance from the station operator.
In the MIR days, the crew did not have the luxury of near
full time
satellite communication that provides voice, email
communication and
an IP phone that lets them make phone calls. If the MIR
crew wanted to
talk to someone, they needed to use the ham radio or the
Russian VHF
space to ground system. The ISS crew has plenty of options
to choose
from when they want to communicate and it depends on the
personality
of the crew as to which ones get utilized.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org
[mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On
Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] further late reply regarding ISS simplex
Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
Despite support of the present frequency scheme for the ISS
I still
wish to disagree with the policy of split operation with
different
phone uplinks.
Back when the MIR was up, the russians operated simplex and
left the
radio on to listen for callers. On several occasions, I called the MIR according to my
tracking
program and was rewarded several times with a response.
With two different uplink frequencies, the astronauts are
less
inclined to leave the radio on to listen for callers.
When there were several callers here on simplex responding
to a CQ
call from the MIR, we acted civilized and took turns and
everyone made
contacts so I dont buy the absolute need for split
operation.
Besides, how many callers could there be within 20 or 30
miles up to
the horizon.
We've had years of robot like amateur radio on the ISS. How
about
loosening the ties!
Thanks for the soapbox..... pat
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of
AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
---- Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
The "transmit-at-will" method of split-frequency operation is also inconsiderate, since no attempt at all is made to take turns (with those near you) in a gentlemanly manner. For that we are "rewarded" with a clear downlink... most of the time. I still find unknowledgable people transmitting on the downlink from time to time, and I try to educate them to proper splits and operation so they can make a QSO too.
If you have 10 callers in the Chicago-land area, courteously taking turns calling the ISS on simplex... that may be as much as a 90% reduction in the QRM (only 1 out of 10 calling at a time) from this area.... but probably a little less due to the randomness of calling patterns. I realize the ISS footprint is much larger, and you can't take turns with the whole country... but if every urban area were to operate similarly, there would indeed be at least some reduction in QRM for the crew.
Inconsiderate people on simplex too? Sure, sometimes. But the key is to educate people to proper operation, whether simplex or split. And on simplex, you can IDENTIFY who is inconsiderate of others.
Best regards, Stan/W4SV
On 11 Aug 2006 at 20:17, Robert Bruninga wrote:
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling whether its split or simplex operation so why not make it
simplex!
Because many of us live near inconsiderate operators that step all Over the downlink by transmitting on the uplink. Simplex is just not a good idea. The downlink should be separate from the uplink so that everyone can hear the downlink without interfererence from uplink stations.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org [mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:43 PM To: Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] Ransom; bruninga@usna.edu Cc: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] Re: further late reply regarding ISS simplex
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling whether its split or simplex operation so why not make it
simplex!
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
It sounds like your issue is not that split frequencies are
bad but
that multiple uplinks makes it difficult for the crew to
listen to one
uplink. ITU region regulations for ground station
operations are the
culprit. Space has no borders but Earth does so have of the
problem is
getting everyone to agree on a single uplink. Not everyone
in the
world has the same frequency allocations nor do they use
the available
spectrum in their region the same way.
The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the number of callers
in the 2000
km wide footprint. The station has to listen to all of
them. Since you
can't hear all of them, it becomes difficult to know when
someone is
talking or not without guidance from the station operator.
In the MIR days, the crew did not have the luxury of near
full time
satellite communication that provides voice, email
communication and
an IP phone that lets them make phone calls. If the MIR
crew wanted to
talk to someone, they needed to use the ham radio or the
Russian VHF
space to ground system. The ISS crew has plenty of options
to choose
from when they want to communicate and it depends on the
personality
of the crew as to which ones get utilized.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org
[mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On
Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] further late reply regarding ISS simplex
Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
Despite support of the present frequency scheme for the ISS
I still
wish to disagree with the policy of split operation with
different
phone uplinks.
Back when the MIR was up, the russians operated simplex and
left the
radio on to listen for callers. On several occasions, I called the MIR according to my
tracking
program and was rewarded several times with a response.
With two different uplink frequencies, the astronauts are
less
inclined to leave the radio on to listen for callers.
When there were several callers here on simplex responding
to a CQ
call from the MIR, we acted civilized and took turns and
everyone made
contacts so I dont buy the absolute need for split
operation.
Besides, how many callers could there be within 20 or 30
miles up to
the horizon.
We've had years of robot like amateur radio on the ISS. How
about
loosening the ties!
Thanks for the soapbox..... pat
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of
AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
I listen to the uplink (split) frequency as well as the downlink frequency so I can avoid QRM to other local operators. I can identify any inconsiderate operators too.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- Stan Vandiver w4sv@arrl.net wrote:
The "transmit-at-will" method of split-frequency operation is also inconsiderate, since no attempt at all is made to take turns (with those near you) in a gentlemanly manner. For that we are "rewarded" with a clear downlink... most of the time. I still find unknowledgable people transmitting on the downlink from time to time, and I try to educate them to proper splits and operation so they can make a QSO too.
If you have 10 callers in the Chicago-land area, courteously taking turns calling the ISS on simplex... that may be as much as a 90% reduction in the QRM (only 1 out of 10 calling at a time) from this area.... but probably a little less due to the randomness of calling patterns. I realize the ISS footprint is much larger, and you can't take turns with the whole country... but if every urban area were to operate similarly, there would indeed be at least some reduction in QRM for the crew.
Inconsiderate people on simplex too? Sure, sometimes. But the key is to educate people to proper operation, whether simplex or split. And on simplex, you can IDENTIFY who is inconsiderate of others.
Best regards, Stan/W4SV
On 11 Aug 2006 at 20:17, Robert Bruninga wrote:
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone
calling
whether its split or simplex operation so why
not make it
simplex!
Because many of us live near inconsiderate
operators that step
all Over the downlink by transmitting on the uplink.
Simplex is
just not a good idea. The downlink should be separate from the uplink so
that everyone
can hear the downlink without interfererence from
uplink
stations.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org [mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf Of
McGrane
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:43 PM To: Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] Ransom;
bruninga@usna.edu
Cc: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] Re: further late reply
regarding ISS simplex
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone
calling
whether its split or simplex operation so why
not make it
simplex!
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G.
(JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
It sounds like your issue is not that split
frequencies are
bad but
that multiple uplinks makes it difficult for
the crew to
listen to one
uplink. ITU region regulations for ground
station
operations are the
culprit. Space has no borders but Earth does
so have of the
problem is
getting everyone to agree on a single uplink.
Not everyone
in the
world has the same frequency allocations nor
do they use
the available
spectrum in their region the same way.
The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the
number of callers
in the 2000
km wide footprint. The station has to listen
to all of
them. Since you
can't hear all of them, it becomes difficult
to know when
someone is
talking or not without guidance from the
station operator.
In the MIR days, the crew did not have the
luxury of near
full time
satellite communication that provides voice,
communication and
an IP phone that lets them make phone calls.
If the MIR
crew wanted to
talk to someone, they needed to use the ham
radio or the
Russian VHF
space to ground system. The ISS crew has
plenty of options
to choose
from when they want to communicate and it
depends on the
personality
of the crew as to which ones get utilized.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org
[mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On
Behalf Of McGrane Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] further late reply regarding
ISS simplex
Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
Despite support of the present frequency
scheme for the ISS
I still
wish to disagree with the policy of split
operation with
different
phone uplinks.
Back when the MIR was up, the russians
operated simplex and
left the
radio on to listen for callers. On several occasions, I called the MIR
according to my
tracking
program and was rewarded several times with a
response.
With two different uplink frequencies, the
astronauts are
less
inclined to leave the radio on to listen for
callers.
When there were several callers here on
simplex responding
to a CQ
call from the MIR, we acted civilized and took
turns and
everyone made
contacts so I dont buy the absolute need for
split
operation.
Besides, how many callers could there be
within 20 or 30
miles up to
the horizon.
We've had years of robot like amateur radio on
the ISS. How
about
loosening the ties!
Thanks for the soapbox..... pat
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG
courtesy
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
The big problem is Not the Voice Split frequency on ISS. It is the IARU regional restrictions placed on ISS
ITU passes laws! ITU says Satellite is ok 144.000- 146.000 IARU does not pass Laws. IARU said ISS must follow IARU region plans. (And there are also Local Country law too)
Before I go any further, I would like the thank the ARISS team, including Frank Bauer for working very had with the IARU in getting ISS some assigned frequencies. I know first hand how difficult it is to negotiate with 180+ counties to get them to agree on a frequency plan. Frank went to the IARU and came back with some frequencies several years ago. It may not have been exactly what we wanted, but it was a starting point. And now we had some Assigned frequencies to work with. LetÂ’s use them and find out what works, and what needs to be changed. Then document the issues, collect reports from all of the ISS crews and see if we need to go back to the IARU and ask for some changes.
The ISS is the first Amateur Satellite to ever have an IARU regional restriction. The two different voice channels based on Regions were an experiment. Guess what, the experiment failed. We can now learn from this experiment.
As the Space Station Mir Sysop for 10 years, I was directly involved in many Frequency negotiations. At the First ARISS meeting November 1996, a proposal was present to put Mir on 145.800 down and 145.200 up. The Experiment ran from Mid November 1996 until mid February 1997. The Mir crew was very helpful in reporting the QRM levels, etc. The Frequency 145.200 could not be used worldwide; it was just too busy. The Mir crew switched back to 145.985 and stayed there until Mission end in 2001. With the Mir station we had an advantage that ISS did not have. We had access to a crew that knew the importance of Amateur Radio and were willing to experiment with any frequency we gave them to find a clear channel. On ISS we just do not have that luxury with ISS. All of our QRM estimates have to be based on local terrestrial observations.
The ISS crew is programmed to follow Order, Rules and procedures. The ISS crew knows they have to change channels depending on which IARU region they are over. The ISS crew does not know when they are near an IARU border.
Countries need to do a better job at sharing Weak Signal portions of the Band. Mir got kicked off 145.550 simplex because some people in the UK did not want to share the simplex band with MIR Space Station. We were only in range of the UK for a maximum of 1 hour per day. Fortunately I had been previously experimented with frequencies from Mir, So I put Mir on 145.895 and no one complained.
ARISS needs to interview all of the ISS ham crews and ask them some simple questions. Example: Would a worldwide voice channel help you with your voice contacts? Would you have used the radio more often if you had a worldwide voice channel? Etc.
ISS Satellite operators need to talk to their IARU representatives and present their case. We need a worldwide Voice Channel for the ISS crews on 2-meters. And maybe more for the Commercial Space Station later this decade and for the Moon Landes Repeaters too.
Sharing of Frequencies: It is possible for some types of Weak Signal operations to share a band Segment. Example: If you asked 100 2-meter weak signal beacon listening operators, “would you mind sharing the band with the International Space Station for a maximum of 1 hour per day” I will guess and say that most friendly hams would not mind “Sharing” our limited resources with another weak signal mode.
There are some modes that you can not share with, because of their duty cycle and bandwidth requirements. During the Mir program we discovered that FM repeater outputs and Packet BBSÂ’s are modes you must stay very far away from. Our calculations indicate the absolute minimum frequency separation between a weak satellite Signal and a FM repeater output is 25 kHz. (Assuming the FM Repeater transmitter is at least 40 kilometers away).
So lets collect data from the ISS crew.
Document the data
Present the data to the IARU along with the input from the Amateur Radio satellite community.
And solve the problem.
Just a suggestion.
WF1F
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hi!
The big problem is Not the Voice Split frequency on ISS. It is the IARU regional restrictions placed on ISS
<snip>
The ISS is the first Amateur Satellite to ever have an IARU regional restriction. The two different voice channels based on Regions were an experiment. Guess what, the experiment failed. We can now learn from this experiment.
The "experiment" failed? I never read that the ISS voice and packet frequencies were experimental. These were the frequencies that could be used around the world, minimizing interference with others on the ground and still allow for useful ham radio activity from the station. Has anyone asked the active crewmembers - most recently, Bill McArthur - for opinions on how the different voice frequencies worked for them while up on the ISS?
In my opinion, success or failure of the ISS frequencies is not based on whether we use a common worldwide frequency pair - or simplex frequency - for voice operations. Without crews interested in using the radio for more than school contacts in the first place, we could set up the ideal configuration but still have no activity from up there. Mir had fewer communications options than the ISS, and ISS has much more for the crews, work-related and for recreational activities. Ham radio is but one of many options the ISS crews have access to. Some will choose to make use of it - like Bill McArthur did, and Pavel Vinogradov currently does on some occasions - and others will not.
It would be nice to have more activity from up there, but that is in the hands of the crews and how they choose to use their free time. Just like with the hams on the ground, who may not choose to use their radios and do other things like Internet, watch movies, etc. I enjoyed making contacts with Bill McArthur, and listening to him make contacts on other occasions during his time on the ISS. Those contacts I made with him are among the high points of my time as a ham. I'd like to hear more of that activity in the future, and we can hope for more of that.
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK - Phoenix, Arizona USA http://www.wd9ewk.net/
Does a (1) non interfering (2) two meter (3) satellite (4) simplex frequency for worldwide use exist?
I guess one would need to start with the approved world wide satellite frequencies - 144-146 MHz. Then overlay regional usage band plans and see what was left.
The ARRL band plan (http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html#2m) for the USA has satellite operations from 144.30-144.50 and 145.80-146.00. That limits it down in a hurry so that criteria #1 is met.
What do other regional band plans have in that range that meet the first criteria?
Kenneth - N5VHO
The only universal frequencies are 145.8-146.
Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
Does a (1) non interfering (2) two meter (3) satellite (4) simplex frequency for worldwide use exist?
I guess one would need to start with the approved world wide satellite frequencies - 144-146 MHz. Then overlay regional usage band plans and see what was left.
The ARRL band plan (http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html#2m) for the USA has satellite operations from 144.30-144.50 and 145.80-146.00. That limits it down in a hurry so that criteria #1 is met.
What do other regional band plans have in that range that meet the first criteria?
Kenneth - N5VHO
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Greetings after a busy day and to continue, the choice of a simplex frequency is easy; 145.800
pat
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
Does a (1) non interfering (2) two meter (3) satellite (4) simplex frequency for worldwide use exist?
I guess one would need to start with the approved world wide satellite frequencies - 144-146 MHz. Then overlay regional usage band plans and see what was left.
The ARRL band plan (http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html#2m) for the USA has satellite operations from 144.30-144.50 and 145.80-146.00. That limits it down in a hurry so that criteria #1 is met.
What do other regional band plans have in that range that meet the first criteria?
Kenneth - N5VHO
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
I was under the impression that the UK had issues using that for uplinks.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
Greetings after a busy day and to continue, the choice of a simplex frequency is easy; 145.800
pat
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
Does a (1) non interfering (2) two meter (3)
satellite (4) simplex frequency for worldwide use exist?
I guess one would need to start with the approved
world wide satellite frequencies - 144-146 MHz.
Then overlay regional usage band plans and see
what was left.
The ARRL band plan
(http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html#2m)
for the USA has satellite operations from 144.30-144.50 and 145.80-146.00. That limits it down in a hurry so that criteria #1 is met.
What do other regional band plans have in that
range that meet the first criteria?
Kenneth - N5VHO
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy
of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
More bad news. It appears that some countries have repeaters on 145.80. India and Russia are a couple that do.
Kenneth - N5VHO
________________________________
From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org on behalf of Kenneth, N5VHO Sent: Sat 8/12/2006 9:04 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] Re: Simplex and space
I was under the impression that the UK had issues using that for uplinks.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
Greetings after a busy day and to continue, the choice of a simplex frequency is easy; 145.800
pat
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
Does a (1) non interfering (2) two meter (3)
satellite (4) simplex frequency for worldwide use exist?
I guess one would need to start with the approved
world wide satellite frequencies - 144-146 MHz.
Then overlay regional usage band plans and see
what was left.
The ARRL band plan
(http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html#2m)
for the USA has satellite operations from 144.30-144.50 and 145.80-146.00. That limits it down in a hurry so that criteria #1 is met.
What do other regional band plans have in that
range that meet the first criteria?
Kenneth - N5VHO
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy
of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---- Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
As I recall from my days of film making with the late Roy Neal, K6DUE, (who was the person who literally began the manned ham radio in space operations through his connections with NASA) the reason the frequencies are -- as they are -- is the result of three years of exhaustive research by the folks who are responsible for any ham radio being ion the ISS. The choice was made so that ARISS operations interfere with no-body -- and hopefully -- nobody on the ground interferes with ARISS.
Changing hats: Since the 1960's I have been researching and writing about bandplanning -- repeaters -- remote bases -- etc. The first 26 years for the now defunct 73 Magazine (Looking west) and the past several years for Worldradio. As such, I have an ongoing information flow that few if any of you have.
And it boils down to this: Not all the world having the same bandplans as the USA and North America. And the "world" is not going to change to satisfy a small group of folks who -- now and then -- want to talk to an astronaut or cosmonaut.
Rather, those interested in such an activity can only perform it because the rest of the world'a ham radio community permits it to happen. And the rest of the world of ham radio has -- in a defacto sense -- has dictated to manned space enthusiasts where they can operate.
The bottom line: Be happy that you can have the opportunity to make these contacts at all and stop moaning because you may have to twiddle a dial once in a while. Just consider it as being the way it is -- and the way its going to remain -- because it is not within any of your power to change.
de Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF
At 04:55 PM 8/12/2006, McGrane wrote:
Greetings after a busy day and to continue, the choice of a simplex frequency is easy; 145.800
pat
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
Does a (1) non interfering (2) two meter (3) satellite (4) simplex
frequency for worldwide use exist?
I guess one would need to start with the approved world wide satellite
frequencies - 144-146 MHz.
Then overlay regional usage band plans and see what was left.
The ARRL band plan
(http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html#2m) for the USA has satellite operations from 144.30-144.50 and 145.80-146.00. That limits it down in a hurry so that criteria #1 is met.
What do other regional band plans have in that range that meet the
first criteria?
Kenneth - N5VHO
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
greetings- in response to an extremely condesending post, I must say your reading comprehension is poor for a writer unless you didnt read all the exchanges. To the contrary, I believe I can do something. that is why I try. pat
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, William M. Pasternak wrote:
As I recall from my days of film making with the late Roy Neal, K6DUE, (who was the person who literally began the manned ham radio in space operations through his connections with NASA) the reason the frequencies are -- as they are -- is the result of three years of exhaustive research by the folks who are responsible for any ham radio being ion the ISS. The choice was made so that ARISS operations interfere with no-body -- and hopefully -- nobody on the ground interferes with ARISS.
Changing hats: Since the 1960's I have been researching and writing about bandplanning -- repeaters -- remote bases -- etc. The first 26 years for the now defunct 73 Magazine (Looking west) and the past several years for Worldradio. As such, I have an ongoing information flow that few if any of you have.
And it boils down to this: Not all the world having the same bandplans as the USA and North America. And the "world" is not going to change to satisfy a small group of folks who -- now and then -- want to talk to an astronaut or cosmonaut.
Rather, those interested in such an activity can only perform it because the rest of the world'a ham radio community permits it to happen. And the rest of the world of ham radio has -- in a defacto sense -- has dictated to manned space enthusiasts where they can operate.
The bottom line: Be happy that you can have the opportunity to make these contacts at all and stop moaning because you may have to twiddle a dial once in a while. Just consider it as being the way it is -- and the way its going to remain -- because it is not within any of your power to change.
de Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF
At 04:55 PM 8/12/2006, McGrane wrote:
Greetings after a busy day and to continue, the choice of a simplex frequency is easy; 145.800
pat
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
Does a (1) non interfering (2) two meter (3) satellite (4) simplex
frequency for worldwide use exist?
I guess one would need to start with the approved world wide satellite
frequencies - 144-146 MHz.
Then overlay regional usage band plans and see what was left.
The ARRL band plan
(http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html#2m) for the USA has satellite operations from 144.30-144.50 and 145.80-146.00. That limits it down in a hurry so that criteria #1 is met.
What do other regional band plans have in that range that meet the
first criteria?
Kenneth - N5VHO
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
greetings- in response to an extremely condesending post, I must say your reading comprehension is poor for a writer unless you didnt read all the exchanges. To the contrary, I believe I can do something. that is why I try. pat
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, William M. Pasternak wrote:
As I recall from my days of film making with the late Roy Neal, K6DUE,
(who
was the person who literally began the manned ham radio in space
operations
through his connections with NASA) the reason the frequencies are -- as they are -- is the result of three years of exhaustive research by the folks who are responsible for any ham radio being ion the ISS. The choice was made so that ARISS operations interfere with no-body -- and hopefully -- nobody on the ground interferes with ARISS.
Changing hats: Since the 1960's I have been researching and writing about bandplanning -- repeaters -- remote bases -- etc. The first 26 years for the now defunct 73 Magazine (Looking west) and the past several years for Worldradio. As such, I have an ongoing information flow that few if
any of
you have.
And it boils down to this: Not all the world having the same bandplans as the USA and North America. And the "world" is not going to change to satisfy a small group of folks who -- now and then -- want to talk to an astronaut or cosmonaut.
Rather, those interested in such an activity can only perform it because the rest of the world'a ham radio community permits it to happen. And the rest of the world of ham radio has -- in a defacto sense -- has
dictated to
manned space enthusiasts where they can operate.
The bottom line: Be happy that you can have the opportunity to make these contacts at all and stop moaning because you may have to twiddle a dial once in a while. Just consider it as being the way it is -- and the way its going to remain -- because it is not within any of your power to
change.
de Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF
At 04:55 PM 8/12/2006, McGrane wrote:
Greetings after a busy day and to continue, the choice of a simplex frequency is easy; 145.800
pat
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
Does a (1) non interfering (2) two meter (3) satellite (4) simplex
frequency for worldwide use exist?
I guess one would need to start with the approved world wide satellite
frequencies - 144-146 MHz.
Then overlay regional usage band plans and see what was left.
The ARRL band plan
(http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html#2m) for the USA has satellite operations from 144.30-144.50 and 145.80-146.00. That limits it down in a hurry so that criteria #1 is met.
What do other regional band plans have in that range that meet the
first criteria?
Kenneth - N5VHO
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Don't ya just love easy-sats.
Hee Heee Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Sorry.
ISS Amateur Radio Status: August 13, 2006
SpaceCam Status, Active Aug 12 and 13 By Miles Mann WF1F,
MAREX-MG News www.marexmg.org
Manned Amateur Radio Experiment
Hi everyone:
SpaceCam was activated for a few orbits Yesterday August 12. I posted a few pictures on the Marex web page.
Special thanks to:
M0ZLB Essex, United Kingdom Icom IC-706MkIIG MMSSTV Format Robot 36.
The down link was on 145.800 MHZ. There is NO uplink at this time.
I just received word that SpaceCam will also be activated around 1600 UTC on August 13, 2006. SSTV activity will be intermittent while the crew still perform other testing.
Good Luck and keep those images coming.
We would like to collect all images received. However in order to properly catalog the images we request you use the following image naming format.
After you receive you images, please rename the images using the following format.
Year 2006, Month 07, Day31, z, (UTC time), Call sign, Short text description, .JPG
Example
20060731z1905wf1fwindowshot.jpg
If we break this down Year =2006 Month = 07 Day = 31 Z = spacer to help find time Time = 1905 UTC Call sign = wf1f Description = Windows shot Image format = jpg
Image Quality Please do not put a lot of text over lays on the images, Example, do not put web page or advertisements in the image. Your own call sign and date are acceptable.
Send all images directly to Marex at Marexmg@comcast.net
We would also like to know the following information in your email.
Name or Call sign Country / State Receiver Software decoding tool Elevation or range of ISS when you decoded the image.
Marexmg Web page http://www.marexmg.org
73 Miles WF1F MAREX-MG
Until we meet again
DOSVIDANIYA Miles WF1F
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
It looks like the Slide Show mode is still running. Just got word from Russia that down link sstv still present on 145.800. Aug 13, 2055 utc.
Slide show mode will send a new image aprox every 3-5 minutes. The images have been previously stored on the Disk drive. The USB camera is not active at this time.
wf1f
--- MM ka1rrw@yahoo.com wrote:
ISS Amateur Radio Status: August 13, 2006
SpaceCam Status, Active Aug 12 and 13 By Miles Mann WF1F,
MAREX-MG News www.marexmg.org
Manned Amateur Radio Experiment
Hi everyone:
SpaceCam was activated for a few orbits Yesterday August 12. I posted a few pictures on the Marex web page.
Special thanks to:
M0ZLB Essex, United Kingdom Icom IC-706MkIIG MMSSTV Format Robot 36.
The down link was on 145.800 MHZ. There is NO uplink at this time.
I just received word that SpaceCam will also be activated around 1600 UTC on August 13, 2006. SSTV activity will be intermittent while the crew still perform other testing.
Good Luck and keep those images coming.
We would like to collect all images received. However in order to properly catalog the images we request you use the following image naming format.
After you receive you images, please rename the images using the following format.
Year 2006, Month 07, Day31, z, (UTC time), Call sign, Short text description, .JPG
Example
20060731z1905wf1fwindowshot.jpg
If we break this down Year =2006 Month = 07 Day = 31 Z = spacer to help find time Time = 1905 UTC Call sign = wf1f Description = Windows shot Image format = jpg
Image Quality Please do not put a lot of text over lays on the images, Example, do not put web page or advertisements in the image. Your own call sign and date are acceptable.
Send all images directly to Marex at Marexmg@comcast.net
We would also like to know the following information in your email.
Name or Call sign Country / State Receiver Software decoding tool Elevation or range of ISS when you decoded the image.
Marexmg Web page http://www.marexmg.org
73 Miles WF1F MAREX-MG
Until we meet again
DOSVIDANIYA Miles WF1F
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Split operations allows everyone can hear the astronauts talking back all the time.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling whether its split or simplex operation so why not make it simplex!
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
It sounds like your issue is not that split
frequencies are bad but that
multiple uplinks makes it difficult for the crew
to listen to one
uplink. ITU region regulations for ground station
operations are the
culprit. Space has no borders but Earth does so
have of the problem is
getting everyone to agree on a single uplink. Not
everyone in the world
has the same frequency allocations nor do they use
the available
spectrum in their region the same way.
The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the number of
callers in the 2000
km wide footprint. The station has to listen to
all of them. Since you
can't hear all of them, it becomes difficult to
know when someone is
talking or not without guidance from the station
operator.
In the MIR days, the crew did not have the luxury
of near full time
satellite communication that provides voice, email
communication and an
IP phone that lets them make phone calls. If the
MIR crew wanted to talk
to someone, they needed to use the ham radio or
the Russian VHF space to
ground system. The ISS crew has plenty of options
to choose from when
they want to communicate and it depends on the
personality of the crew
as to which ones get utilized.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org
[mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf
Of McGrane Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] further late reply regarding ISS
simplex
Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
Despite support of the present frequency scheme
for the ISS I still wish
to disagree with the policy of split operation
with different phone
uplinks.
Back when the MIR was up, the russians operated
simplex and left the
radio on to listen for callers. On several occasions, I called the MIR according
to my tracking program
and was rewarded several times with a response.
With two different uplink frequencies, the
astronauts are less inclined
to leave the radio on to listen for callers.
When there were several callers here on simplex
responding to a CQ call
from the MIR, we acted civilized and took turns
and everyone made
contacts so I dont buy the absolute need for split
operation.
Besides, how many callers could there be within 20
or 30 miles up to the
horizon.
We've had years of robot like amateur radio on the
ISS. How about
loosening the ties!
Thanks for the soapbox..... pat
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy
of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Sorry kenneth but you totally missed the original point----- theres been very little phone activity from the ISS for many years and split seperate frequencies are an unneccesary incumberance to operation.
What good is split operation if the astronauts dont use it????
With simplex, maybe theyll leave the radio on for callers. That states my point simply.
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Kenneth, N5VHO wrote:
Split operations allows everyone can hear the astronauts talking back all the time.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling whether its split or simplex operation so why not make it simplex!
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
It sounds like your issue is not that split
frequencies are bad but that
multiple uplinks makes it difficult for the crew
to listen to one
uplink. ITU region regulations for ground station
operations are the
culprit. Space has no borders but Earth does so
have of the problem is
getting everyone to agree on a single uplink. Not
everyone in the world
has the same frequency allocations nor do they use
the available
spectrum in their region the same way.
The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the number of
callers in the 2000
km wide footprint. The station has to listen to
all of them. Since you
can't hear all of them, it becomes difficult to
know when someone is
talking or not without guidance from the station
operator.
In the MIR days, the crew did not have the luxury
of near full time
satellite communication that provides voice, email
communication and an
IP phone that lets them make phone calls. If the
MIR crew wanted to talk
to someone, they needed to use the ham radio or
the Russian VHF space to
ground system. The ISS crew has plenty of options
to choose from when
they want to communicate and it depends on the
personality of the crew
as to which ones get utilized.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org
[mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf
Of McGrane Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] further late reply regarding ISS
simplex
Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
Despite support of the present frequency scheme
for the ISS I still wish
to disagree with the policy of split operation
with different phone
uplinks.
Back when the MIR was up, the russians operated
simplex and left the
radio on to listen for callers. On several occasions, I called the MIR according
to my tracking program
and was rewarded several times with a response.
With two different uplink frequencies, the
astronauts are less inclined
to leave the radio on to listen for callers.
When there were several callers here on simplex
responding to a CQ call
from the MIR, we acted civilized and took turns
and everyone made
contacts so I dont buy the absolute need for split
operation.
Besides, how many callers could there be within 20
or 30 miles up to the
horizon.
We've had years of robot like amateur radio on the
ISS. How about
loosening the ties!
Thanks for the soapbox..... pat
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy
of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
So one frequency up and down for SSTV, Packet, Voice, PSK-31 and two for the crossband repeater.
I think you need to go back to my posting regarding the reason "theres been very little phone activity from the ISS for many years"(regardless of the up/down frequency scheme). They have other things to play with. Only interested crew members get on now a days and the rest are a horse lead to water issue.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
Sorry kenneth but you totally missed the original point----- theres been very little phone activity from the ISS for many years and split seperate frequencies are an unneccesary incumberance to operation.
What good is split operation if the astronauts dont use it????
With simplex, maybe theyll leave the radio on for callers. That states my point simply.
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Kenneth, N5VHO wrote:
Split operations allows everyone can hear the astronauts talking back all the time.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling whether its split or simplex operation so why not make it simplex!
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
It sounds like your issue is not that split
frequencies are bad but that
multiple uplinks makes it difficult for the
crew
to listen to one
uplink. ITU region regulations for ground
station
operations are the
culprit. Space has no borders but Earth does
so
have of the problem is
getting everyone to agree on a single uplink.
Not
everyone in the world
has the same frequency allocations nor do they
use
the available
spectrum in their region the same way.
The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the
number of
callers in the 2000
km wide footprint. The station has to listen
to
all of them. Since you
can't hear all of them, it becomes difficult
to
know when someone is
talking or not without guidance from the
station
operator.
In the MIR days, the crew did not have the
luxury
of near full time
satellite communication that provides voice,
communication and an
IP phone that lets them make phone calls. If
the
MIR crew wanted to talk
to someone, they needed to use the ham radio
or
the Russian VHF space to
ground system. The ISS crew has plenty of
options
to choose from when
they want to communicate and it depends on the
personality of the crew
as to which ones get utilized.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org
[mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf
Of McGrane Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] further late reply regarding
ISS
simplex
Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
Despite support of the present frequency
scheme
for the ISS I still wish
to disagree with the policy of split operation
with different phone
uplinks.
Back when the MIR was up, the russians
operated
simplex and left the
radio on to listen for callers. On several occasions, I called the MIR
according
to my tracking program
and was rewarded several times with a
response.
With two different uplink frequencies, the
astronauts are less inclined
to leave the radio on to listen for callers.
When there were several callers here on
simplex
responding to a CQ call
from the MIR, we acted civilized and took
turns
and everyone made
contacts so I dont buy the absolute need for
split
operation.
Besides, how many callers could there be
within 20
or 30 miles up to the
horizon.
We've had years of robot like amateur radio on
the
ISS. How about
loosening the ties!
Thanks for the soapbox..... pat
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG
courtesy
of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy
of
AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Now a days? It has always been like that, even when the "S" in SAREX meant "Shuttle". I've been skunked many times from shuttle crews too, due either to low interest, or heavy workloads. There are few "hams" like Owen Garriott, Tony England, Valery Korzun, or Bill McArthur... but many others have still done a fine job (no, not their "job" obviously) of getting on the air and making random QSO's. We realize they have "real work" to do onboard, and if they have more interest in looking out the window, or shooting photos, or phoning home to their family... they're entitled to spend their free time as they wish. But we very much do enjoy when they take the time to make random contacts with us earthbound hams. It raises our spirits, as we hope it raises theirs, to make this special radio connection.
A very good example of bad split-frequency operation (that is, inexperienced hams) was the crew of Expedition-4 (Bursch and Walz). On Christmas Eve 2001, I copied one of them calling CQ for a whole pass, with absolutely no contacts. I tried every uplink known to me (all pre-programmed in my rig) and they just were not hearing anyone, it seemed. I seriously don't think they couldn't "sort out the QRM" but rather that they had their radio left on one of the secret splits used for school (or other private) contacts, and therefore they just got dead silence, as if no one cared to call them and talk to them, and maybe wish them a Merry Christmas. They never got on the air again either, except for school contacts. That was a shame.
One last comment, back to the Shuttle Amateur Radio EXperiment: they used FIVE voice uplinks, and you had to "win the luck of the draw" to jump between them to try to get them to respond to you. Talk about a QRM generator!!! Things were simplexer, er... simpler, with Mir.
Best regards, Stan/W4SV
On 11 Aug 2006 at 20:03, Kenneth, N5VHO wrote:
So one frequency up and down for SSTV, Packet, Voice, PSK-31 and two for the crossband repeater.
I think you need to go back to my posting regarding the reason "theres been very little phone activity from the ISS for many years"(regardless of the up/down frequency scheme). They have other things to play with. Only interested crew members get on now a days and the rest are a horse lead to water issue.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
Sorry kenneth but you totally missed the original point----- theres been very little phone activity from the ISS for many years and split seperate frequencies are an unneccesary incumberance to operation.
What good is split operation if the astronauts dont use it????
With simplex, maybe theyll leave the radio on for callers. That states my point simply.
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Kenneth, N5VHO wrote:
Split operations allows everyone can hear the astronauts talking back all the time.
Kenneth - N5VHO
--- McGrane tmcgrane@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone calling whether its split or simplex operation so why not make it simplex!
pat
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
It sounds like your issue is not that split
frequencies are bad but that
multiple uplinks makes it difficult for the
crew
to listen to one
uplink. ITU region regulations for ground
station
operations are the
culprit. Space has no borders but Earth does
so
have of the problem is
getting everyone to agree on a single uplink.
Not
everyone in the world
has the same frequency allocations nor do they
use
the available
spectrum in their region the same way.
The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the
number of
callers in the 2000
km wide footprint. The station has to listen
to
all of them. Since you
can't hear all of them, it becomes difficult
to
know when someone is
talking or not without guidance from the
station
operator.
In the MIR days, the crew did not have the
luxury
of near full time
satellite communication that provides voice,
communication and an
IP phone that lets them make phone calls. If
the
MIR crew wanted to talk
to someone, they needed to use the ham radio
or
the Russian VHF space to
ground system. The ISS crew has plenty of
options
to choose from when
they want to communicate and it depends on the
personality of the crew
as to which ones get utilized.
Kenneth - N5VHO
-----Original Message----- From: sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org
[mailto:sarex-bounces@AMSAT.Org] On Behalf
Of McGrane Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM To: Manned space BBS Subject: [sarex] further late reply regarding
ISS
simplex
Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
Despite support of the present frequency
scheme
for the ISS I still wish
to disagree with the policy of split operation
with different phone
uplinks.
Back when the MIR was up, the russians
operated
simplex and left the
radio on to listen for callers. On several occasions, I called the MIR
according
to my tracking program
and was rewarded several times with a
response.
With two different uplink frequencies, the
astronauts are less inclined
to leave the radio on to listen for callers.
When there were several callers here on
simplex
responding to a CQ call
from the MIR, we acted civilized and took
turns
and everyone made
contacts so I dont buy the absolute need for
split
operation.
Besides, how many callers could there be
within 20
or 30 miles up to the
horizon.
We've had years of robot like amateur radio on
the
ISS. How about
loosening the ties!
Thanks for the soapbox..... pat
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG
courtesy
of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, visit
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy
of
AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, visit http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/sarex
participants (12)
-
Bob Witte K0NR -
Greg D. -
Kenneth, N5VHO -
McGrane -
MM -
Nigel A. Gunn G8IFF/KC8NHF -
Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK) -
Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] -
Robert Bruninga -
Stan Vandiver -
Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL -
William M. Pasternak