| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 12.08.08 15:21l 1295 Lines 51410 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 25347_CX2SA
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V3 407
Path: IZ3LSV<IV3SCP<SR1BSZ<SP7MGD<CX2SA
Sent: 080812/1322Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:25347 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:25347_CX2SA
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: AMSAT HEO design evolution (longish) (Trevor)
2. AMSAT UK P3E Lecture HEO vs GEO. and AMSAT-NA Priorities
(Joe Westbrook)
3. For Sale "TrakBox" Satellite tracker --- REDUCED Price
(Robert Felt)
4. Re: AMSAT UK P3E Lecture HEO vs GEO. and AMSAT-NA Priorities
(John B. Stephensen)
5. Re: AMSAT UK P3E Lecture HEO vs GEO. and AMSAT-NA Priorities
(Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF)
6. Re: SSB Preamp (Greg D.)
7. Re: way of satellite recovery? (Greg D.)
8. Re: AMSAT UK P3E Lecture HEO vs GEO. and AMSAT-NA Priorities
(Edward Cole)
9. Re: AMSAT UK P3E Lecture HEO vs GEO. and AMSAT-NA Priorities
(Joe Westbrook)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:55:37 +0000 (GMT)
From: Trevor <m5aka(AT)yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AMSAT HEO design evolution (longish)
To: AMSAT BB <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <35988.6636.qm(AT)web27201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
A MEO orbit at 4500 km would be good compromise between range, path loss,
radiation, time delay and doppler shift but the problem is geting there or to
higher MEOs. Inevitably you'd end up with a propulsion system on your sat to
get from a 'cheap' 700 km orbit. But once you've got such a system the
additional costs to get it into an HEO orbit are negligable.
However, as the web page http://www.g0mrf.freeserve.co.uk/MEOSAT.htm shows
there are other propulsion systems that are feasable assuming you're prepared
to wait longer to achieve the final orbit.
One of the great things about Cubesats is that they allow you to try
experiments such as alternate means of achieving orbital changes at 'little'
cost.
73 Trevor M5AKA
--- On Mon, 11/8/08, Graham Shirville <g.shirville(AT)btinternet.com> wrote:
> From: Graham Shirville <g.shirville(AT)btinternet.com>
> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: AMSAT HEO design evolution (longish)
> To: "SV1BSX" <sv1bsx(AT)yahoo.gr>, G0MRF(AT)aol.com, m5aka(AT)yahoo.co.uk,
amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org
> Date: Monday, 11 August, 2008, 10:29 PM
> > if we can not launch a HEO, why not about a MEO? I
> remember a nice page
> > around Internet (unfortunately I can't find this
> page any longer)
>
>
> Try one of David's own pages:
>
> http://www.g0mrf.freeserve.co.uk/MEOSAT.htm
>
> Really interesting and thought provoking reading!
>
> 73
>
> Graham
> G3VZV
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:06:07 -0500
From: "Joe Westbrook" <k7zt(AT)suddenlink.net>
Subject: [amsat-bb] AMSAT UK P3E Lecture HEO vs GEO. and AMSAT-NA
Priorities
To: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>, <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <001a01c8fbfe$74e07070$0302a8c0(AT)corp.global.level3.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
John:
So regarding risk, how many HEO Satellites has AMSAT-NA launched that
required firing a rocket motor to achieve a Molniya Orbit?
It seems that AMSAT-DL has the lead on that front, additionally, the
gentleman that did the PE3 Presentation at the AMSAT-UK Symposium indicated
that PE3 uses the same platform as AO10 and AO13, and has been tested. At
least we have a more predictable risk. I took a look at the Satellite
history and it appears that the HEO Flights were all joint ventures with
AMSAT-NA and AMSAT-DL. I recall a great deal of publicity in QST
surrounding the AO40 launch including fund raising activities. Why don't we
observe the same level of commitment that we had for those projects from
AMSAT-NA Leadership?.
AO40 provided extraordinary opportunities for the satellite experimenter, it
wasn't that difficult and was great deal of fun. Additionally, it did push
the operator to work on improving their station for weak signal work.
Remember all of the great AO40 how to web sites that popped up?
Lots of home brew projects! Lots of pictures of stations!
How many of those are out there for AO51?
I believe for those who endeavored to develop hardware and software
definitely
furthered the science. I constructed many different antennas and feeds
learned a
great deal all in my back yard with minimal investment using "arm strong" ,
home-brew az-el set up.
Regarding GEO vs. HEO, I would argue that in terms of the overall
experience, there are significant differences that boil down to the
following::
1. GEO isn't a moving target
2. HEO has a weaker signal
3. With GEO, the antenna is locked down to a fixed Az-EL. No Doppler, no
need to synchronize the orbit or to integrate software applications.
I would challenge you to tell me how GEO wouldn't be an appliance. What's
left
once you mount your Downconverter, feed, LNA, etc, bring it to your xcvr,
short of tuning across the transponder to find a clear frequency to call CQ,
or to locate a contact what's left to do? I agree that GEO would be great
for emergencies, nets, and long rag chews on what will be extremely crowded
xponder space.
Additionally, I think that you would agree that the skill level and overall
experience is diminished. But
that's just me.
All I'm saying is allow the membership vote on how AMSAT-NA resources should
be used, I don't mean to suggest we vote on the type of RX to use, but on
the overall project.
It is my belief that most members wouldn't want resources diverted to a GEO
Project before an HEO Project is fully deployed.
If we loose sight of the main goal, this process could go on for years.
To be successful, AMSAT-NA needs a narrow focus as it has very little in the
way of resources, both human and financial.
I would be satisfied if AMSAT-NA would simply articulate a clear set of
goals and priorities, hell even use the survey that was accomplished in 04.
Communicate these goals to the members at large and finally stand by them.
If at the end of the day those goals are not what the members want, then
they can vote with their wallets.
Regards,
- Joe K7ZT
----- Original Message -----
From: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>
To: "Joe Westbrook" <k7zt(AT)suddenlink.net>; "Luc Leblanc"
<lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>; <eu-amsat(AT)yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: [eu-amsat] AMSAT UK P3E Lecture Available
> Since AMSAT-DL and AMSAT-NA both require funding from outside the amateur
> radio community, are going after different sources of funding, and neither
> can predict when they will get that funding, having two efforts would seem
> to double the opportunity for a non-LEO satellite.
>
> I don't think that the risk decreases with P3E. 50% of P3 satellites were
> lost due to failures of engines in the launch vehicle or in the satellite.
>
> I don't see how having a linear transponder in a geostationary orbit
> versus a Molniya orbit makes it an appliance satellite. The antennas and
> transceivers on ground are the same in either case.
>
> 73,
>
> John
> KD6OZH
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Westbrook" <k7zt(AT)suddenlink.net>
> To: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>; "Luc Leblanc"
> <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>; <eu-amsat(AT)yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 16:32 UTC
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [eu-amsat] AMSAT UK P3E Lecture Available
>
>
>> John:
>> Yes, you may have heard statements like in the past we've relied on
>> charity,
>> and Amateur Radio Operators alone can not fund a launch, what you haven't
>> heard are any solutions for launching any HEOs. It seems that the DL
>> folks
>> haven't lost that as a focus, they acknowledge that as expensive as it is
>> to
>> launch an HEO, it is still doable. 3 - 4M Euros $4 - 5M at least they
>> gave
>> us a tangible figure we can work with. This amount may be a reach for
>> AMSAT-NA alone, but given that we finally understand what it would take
>> to
>> make a HEO Launch reality, then why wouldn't we shift ALL funding toward
>> that effort? Following the PE3 launch, if any surplus remains, the
>> surplus could be transferred to the next HEO opportunity (Eagle). If no
>> surplus remains then at least we would have one working HEO deployed.
>>
>> Additionally, at least we know the PE3 platform is well vetted, and would
>> have the lowest risk. Rather than spending time and resources on a new,
>> untested platform why wouldn't we just facilitate PE3 FIRST?
>>
>> Ok, I'll speech for myself here, but the GEO ride-share simply isn't an
>> opportunity that will interest the HEO crowd. Launching an appliance to
>> serve the disaster response community and entry level satellite users
>> won't
>> do a thing to satisfy the need for a HEO. I don't care if it's free,
>> like
>> AO51, I would probably get on it, make a couple contacts say "that's
>> nice"
>> and be done with it. Please understand, I'm not saying to abandon GEO as
>> a
>> viable option, just don't spend a cent on it until we launch an HEO.
>>
>> What we need is a satellite that enables the real sprit and intent of the
>> Amateur Radio Service, to push the envelop of the technology, allow for
>> experimentation, consider all of the alternative antenna solutions that
>> our
>> resourceful community developed to receive the 2.4Gig Down Link. No
>> rotator
>> required, different feed systems, a fairly modest resource outlay to get
>> on
>> the air. I did it with a totally home brewed system in a restricted
>> neighborhood back yard. Had a blast and learned allot.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>
>> To: "Luc Leblanc" <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>; <eu-
amsat(AT)yahoogroups.com>
>> Cc: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
>> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 3:14 PM
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [eu-amsat] AMSAT UK P3E Lecture Available
>>
>>
>>> I've been hearing these two statments from AMSAT-NA officals for at
>>> least
>>> 2
>>> years -- in person and on this BB.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> John
>>> KD6OZH
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Luc Leblanc" <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>
>>>>
>>>> Very nice presentations. One attract my attention was made by Peter
>>>> Guelzow DB2OS one one of his slide we can read:
>>>>
>>>> ATTRACTIVENESS OF AMATEUR RADIO HAS DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY
>>>>
>>>> FUNDING A SATELLITE FROM AMATEUR RESSOURCES ALONE NEVER WORKED BEFORE
>>>> AND
>>>> WILL NOT WORK NOW.
>>>>
>>>> I don't how to explain how all the wisdom and reality knowledge seems
>>>> to
>>>> be concentrated in Europe when speaking about amateur satellite?
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the
author.
>>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
>>> program!
>>> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
>> program!
>> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:11:09 -0400
From: "Robert Felt" <robertfelt(AT)bellsouth.net>
Subject: [amsat-bb] For Sale "TrakBox" Satellite tracker --- REDUCED
Price
To: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <324D4F423C7C4E91AD2A617F334AAE63(AT)BobPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
For Sale - REDUCED PRICE -- $100.
"TrakBox" Satellite tracker, antenna rotor controller for stand alone
operation. (JARL design, TAPR kit)
The trakbox is a self-contained, stand-alone rotor/radio control for use with
your satellite stations. Select the satellite you wish to track from a front
panel control and the TrakBox will steer your antennas in both azimuth and
elevation to track the selected satellite when it is or above your horizon. In
addition, if you have a radio with a computer interface, the TrakBox will tune
your transmitter and receiver and correct them for doppler shift. TrakBox is
set up to directly interface to Kenpro, Emmoto, and Yaesu dual-axis rotators
which include a computer interface. Trakbox includes a serial port to allow
you to set the real-time clock (which is battery backed), your station
location (latitude, longitude and elevation) and the keplerian elements for
the satellites you are interested in (up to 40 satellites may be loaded, and
the elements may be uploaded in ASCII in either the AMSAT or NASA formats). A
two-line LCD display is updated every second, showing the azimuth and!
elevation of a satellite, along with the satellite ID and GMT.
I built this kit from TAPR back in the late 1990's. It provided excellent
service. Still works great.
See Complete description and docs at TAPR web page:
http://www.tapr.org/kits_trakbox.html
Now asking only $100. (was $130). Will take PayPal.
73 --- //Bob//
Robert Felt
--KB5YZG--
1403 5th Ave West
Hendersonville, NC 28739
tel: 828-696-4103
email: kb5yzg(AT)amsat.org
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:33:24 -0000
From: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AMSAT UK P3E Lecture HEO vs GEO. and AMSAT-NA
Priorities
To: "Joe Westbrook" <k7zt(AT)suddenlink.net>, <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <007701c8fc23$cc1d8240$0201a8c0(AT)your6bvpxyztoq>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Hi Joe,
The Eagle ride-share requires no engine from AMSAT as it is supplied by and
operated by Intelsat. They have an order of magnitude more experience than
any AMSAT organization and a better track record. It also eliminates more
than half of the work in building the satellite. That has to reduce risk.
AMSAT-NA members are working on P3E and AMSAT-NA has supplied money for the
project so I don't see a lack of support.
Since a HEO and GEO are at similar altitudes, I don't forsee a big
difference in signal strength. The only disadvantage of a GEO for hams is
that it doesn't move so I can't work India from here as I could on AO-13.
However, Molniya orbits aren't very useful to outside funders so there is an
advantage in raising funds. Making satellites hard to use certainly doesn't
help in rasing money. The aspect of AO-40 that QST pushed during fund-rasing
was that it would be easier to use than AO-13.
73,
John
KD6OZH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Westbrook" <k7zt(AT)suddenlink.net>
To: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>; <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 22:06 UTC
Subject: AMSAT UK P3E Lecture HEO vs GEO. and AMSAT-NA Priorities
> John:
> So regarding risk, how many HEO Satellites has AMSAT-NA launched that
> required firing a rocket motor to achieve a Molniya Orbit?
> It seems that AMSAT-DL has the lead on that front, additionally, the
> gentleman that did the PE3 Presentation at the AMSAT-UK Symposium
> indicated
> that PE3 uses the same platform as AO10 and AO13, and has been tested. At
> least we have a more predictable risk. I took a look at the Satellite
> history and it appears that the HEO Flights were all joint ventures with
> AMSAT-NA and AMSAT-DL. I recall a great deal of publicity in QST
> surrounding the AO40 launch including fund raising activities. Why don't
> we
> observe the same level of commitment that we had for those projects from
> AMSAT-NA Leadership?.
>
> AO40 provided extraordinary opportunities for the satellite experimenter,
> it
> wasn't that difficult and was great deal of fun. Additionally, it did push
> the operator to work on improving their station for weak signal work.
> Remember all of the great AO40 how to web sites that popped up?
> Lots of home brew projects! Lots of pictures of stations!
> How many of those are out there for AO51?
>
> I believe for those who endeavored to develop hardware and software
> definitely
> furthered the science. I constructed many different antennas and feeds
> learned a
> great deal all in my back yard with minimal investment using "arm strong"
> , home-brew az-el set up.
>
> Regarding GEO vs. HEO, I would argue that in terms of the overall
> experience, there are significant differences that boil down to the
> following::
> 1. GEO isn't a moving target
> 2. HEO has a weaker signal
> 3. With GEO, the antenna is locked down to a fixed Az-EL. No Doppler, no
> need to synchronize the orbit or to integrate software applications.
>
> I would challenge you to tell me how GEO wouldn't be an appliance. What's
> left
> once you mount your Downconverter, feed, LNA, etc, bring it to your xcvr,
> short of tuning across the transponder to find a clear frequency to call
> CQ,
> or to locate a contact what's left to do? I agree that GEO would be great
> for emergencies, nets, and long rag chews on what will be extremely
> crowded xponder space.
> Additionally, I think that you would agree that the skill level and
> overall experience is diminished. But
> that's just me.
>
> All I'm saying is allow the membership vote on how AMSAT-NA resources
> should
> be used, I don't mean to suggest we vote on the type of RX to use, but on
> the overall project.
> It is my belief that most members wouldn't want resources diverted to a
> GEO Project before an HEO Project is fully deployed.
> If we loose sight of the main goal, this process could go on for years.
> To be successful, AMSAT-NA needs a narrow focus as it has very little in
> the way of resources, both human and financial.
>
> I would be satisfied if AMSAT-NA would simply articulate a clear set of
> goals and priorities, hell even use the survey that was accomplished in
> 04.
> Communicate these goals to the members at large and finally stand by them.
> If at the end of the day those goals are not what the members want, then
> they can vote with their wallets.
>
> Regards,
> - Joe K7ZT
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>
> To: "Joe Westbrook" <k7zt(AT)suddenlink.net>; "Luc Leblanc"
> <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>; <eu-amsat(AT)yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: [eu-amsat] AMSAT UK P3E Lecture Available
>
>
>> Since AMSAT-DL and AMSAT-NA both require funding from outside the amateur
>> radio community, are going after different sources of funding, and
>> neither
>> can predict when they will get that funding, having two efforts would
>> seem
>> to double the opportunity for a non-LEO satellite.
>>
>> I don't think that the risk decreases with P3E. 50% of P3 satellites were
>> lost due to failures of engines in the launch vehicle or in the
>> satellite.
>>
>> I don't see how having a linear transponder in a geostationary orbit
>> versus a Molniya orbit makes it an appliance satellite. The antennas and
>> transceivers on ground are the same in either case.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> John
>> KD6OZH
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Joe Westbrook" <k7zt(AT)suddenlink.net>
>> To: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>; "Luc Leblanc"
>> <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>; <eu-amsat(AT)yahoogroups.com>
>> Cc: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 16:32 UTC
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [eu-amsat] AMSAT UK P3E Lecture Available
>>
>>
>>> John:
>>> Yes, you may have heard statements like in the past we've relied on
>>> charity,
>>> and Amateur Radio Operators alone can not fund a launch, what you
>>> haven't
>>> heard are any solutions for launching any HEOs. It seems that the DL
>>> folks
>>> haven't lost that as a focus, they acknowledge that as expensive as it
>>> is
>>> to
>>> launch an HEO, it is still doable. 3 - 4M Euros $4 - 5M at least they
>>> gave
>>> us a tangible figure we can work with. This amount may be a reach for
>>> AMSAT-NA alone, but given that we finally understand what it would take
>>> to
>>> make a HEO Launch reality, then why wouldn't we shift ALL funding toward
>>> that effort? Following the PE3 launch, if any surplus remains, the
>>> surplus could be transferred to the next HEO opportunity (Eagle). If no
>>> surplus remains then at least we would have one working HEO deployed.
>>>
>>> Additionally, at least we know the PE3 platform is well vetted, and
>>> would
>>> have the lowest risk. Rather than spending time and resources on a new,
>>> untested platform why wouldn't we just facilitate PE3 FIRST?
>>>
>>> Ok, I'll speech for myself here, but the GEO ride-share simply isn't an
>>> opportunity that will interest the HEO crowd. Launching an appliance to
>>> serve the disaster response community and entry level satellite users
>>> won't
>>> do a thing to satisfy the need for a HEO. I don't care if it's free,
>>> like
>>> AO51, I would probably get on it, make a couple contacts say "that's
>>> nice"
>>> and be done with it. Please understand, I'm not saying to abandon GEO
>>> as
>>> a
>>> viable option, just don't spend a cent on it until we launch an HEO.
>>>
>>> What we need is a satellite that enables the real sprit and intent of
>>> the
>>> Amateur Radio Service, to push the envelop of the technology, allow for
>>> experimentation, consider all of the alternative antenna solutions that
>>> our
>>> resourceful community developed to receive the 2.4Gig Down Link. No
>>> rotator
>>> required, different feed systems, a fairly modest resource outlay to get
>>> on
>>> the air. I did it with a totally home brewed system in a restricted
>>> neighborhood back yard. Had a blast and learned allot.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>
>>> To: "Luc Leblanc" <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>; <eu-
amsat(AT)yahoogroups.com>
>>> Cc: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 3:14 PM
>>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [eu-amsat] AMSAT UK P3E Lecture Available
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've been hearing these two statments from AMSAT-NA officals for at
>>>> least
>>>> 2
>>>> years -- in person and on this BB.
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>> KD6OZH
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Luc Leblanc" <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>
>>>>>
>>>>> Very nice presentations. One attract my attention was made by Peter
>>>>> Guelzow DB2OS one one of his slide we can read:
>>>>>
>>>>> ATTRACTIVENESS OF AMATEUR RADIO HAS DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY
>>>>>
>>>>> FUNDING A SATELLITE FROM AMATEUR RESSOURCES ALONE NEVER WORKED BEFORE
>>>>> AND
>>>>> WILL NOT WORK NOW.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't how to explain how all the wisdom and reality knowledge seems
>>>>> to
>>>>> be concentrated in Europe when speaking about amateur satellite?
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the
>>>> author.
>>>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
>>>> program!
>>>> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the
author.
>>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
>>> program!
>>> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>>
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:24:13 +0000
From: Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel(AT)ngunn.net>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AMSAT UK P3E Lecture HEO vs GEO. and AMSAT-NA
Priorities
To: amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org
Message-ID: <48A1025D.7090008(AT)ngunn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Works OK for the US Sirius radio network with a period of approx 24 hours.
John B. Stephensen wrote:
Molniya orbits aren't very useful to outside funders
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:55:16 -0700
From: "Greg D." <ko6th_greg(AT)hotmail.com>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: SSB Preamp
To: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <BLU133-W38207ABDC751E1E6954A5FA9700(AT)phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Not sure what you mean by "recognized a preamp" (I don't have a 910), but if
you have a lightning arrestor in between the rig and the preamp, they usually
block DC from passing. Mine does, so I had to power it with an external cable
(which, now that I think of it, kind of defeats the purpose of the lightning
arrestor...!).
Greg KO6TH
----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:39:56 -0400
> From: roi(AT)optonline.net
> To: AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org
> Subject: [amsat-bb] SSB Preamp
>
> Hi,
>
> Is anyone using a SSB SP-7000 preamp and an Icom 910H powered via direct
> feed from the coax. I am not able to turn the preamp on with this method, I
> set the menu for the preamp and the front panel; it recognizes a preamp but
> it's not working, any ideas?
>
> 73 Peter
> WB2OQQ
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
_________________________________________________________________
Your PC, mobile phone, and online services work together like never before.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108587394/direct/01/
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:04:51 -0700
From: "Greg D." <ko6th_greg(AT)hotmail.com>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: way of satellite recovery?
To: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <BLU133-W18FEF57AA6C8466467FD40A9700(AT)phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:38:42 +0000
> From: m5aka(AT)yahoo.co.uk
> To: AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org; amprorg(AT)yahoo.it
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: way of satellite recovery?
>
> Nice idea , however costs make it unfeasable,
>
> Somebody can I'm sure post the costs of the Shuttle Missions that have
recovered/repaired satellites. I suspect each mission cost many tens of
millions of dollars. No unmanned mission has ever retrieved a satellite.
>
...especially one that is likely leaking some pretty nasty stuff.
Greg KO6TH
_________________________________________________________________
Your PC, mobile phone, and online services work together like never before.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108587394/direct/01/
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 01:01:56 -0800
From: Edward Cole <kl7uw(AT)acsalaska.net>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AMSAT UK P3E Lecture HEO vs GEO. and AMSAT-NA
Priorities
To: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <200808120901.m7C91uHJ068650(AT)iris.acsalaska.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
And if I may make an even simpler appeal: I will take any non-FM
satellite HEO, MEO, or GEO in a time frame that falls within our
lifetime. Did I overstate that?
We know that HEO's take lots of time in design, fabrication,
space-qualification and financing. Many hams are getting up there in
years and may not be able to wait another 10-15 years!
HEO's are great fun and challenge, but a GEO would suffice vs only
having FM Leos for the next decade.
If the GEO is more feasible/practical/realistic, bring it on!
If we can sell one with Emcomm capabilities added to our favorite
modes, why not? If we wait on this too long, it will be done by the
commercial sats so they will not need the ham version. Only hams
like stuff that is "hard to use" - real world is interested in
utility (can you hear me now)
Bottom Line: "Time waits for nobody"
P3E -great
Eagle -wonderful when we can swing it
P4 on Intelsat - don' t miss this ride
I started accumulating "stuff" in 1996 to get on AO-10/13. 1998 got
my Drake converters for AO-40 and the FT-847. 2000-2008 accumulating
my stuff for mw's - is that twelve years? I will retire in 2011. I
hope there is a satellite up there soon!
At 06:33 PM 8/11/2008, John B. Stephensen wrote:
>Hi Joe,
>
>The Eagle ride-share requires no engine from AMSAT as it is supplied by and
>operated by Intelsat. They have an order of magnitude more experience than
>any AMSAT organization and a better track record. It also eliminates more
>than half of the work in building the satellite. That has to reduce risk.
>
>AMSAT-NA members are working on P3E and AMSAT-NA has supplied money for the
>project so I don't see a lack of support.
>
>Since a HEO and GEO are at similar altitudes, I don't forsee a big
>difference in signal strength. The only disadvantage of a GEO for hams is
>that it doesn't move so I can't work India from here as I could on AO-13.
>However, Molniya orbits aren't very useful to outside funders so there is an
>advantage in raising funds. Making satellites hard to use certainly doesn't
>help in rasing money. The aspect of AO-40 that QST pushed during fund-rasing
>was that it would be easier to use than AO-13.
>
>73,
>
>John
>KD6OZH
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joe Westbrook" <k7zt(AT)suddenlink.net>
>To: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>; <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 22:06 UTC
>Subject: AMSAT UK P3E Lecture HEO vs GEO. and AMSAT-NA Priorities
>
>
> > John:
> > So regarding risk, how many HEO Satellites has AMSAT-NA launched that
> > required firing a rocket motor to achieve a Molniya Orbit?
> > It seems that AMSAT-DL has the lead on that front, additionally, the
> > gentleman that did the PE3 Presentation at the AMSAT-UK Symposium
> > indicated
> > that PE3 uses the same platform as AO10 and AO13, and has been tested. At
> > least we have a more predictable risk. I took a look at the Satellite
> > history and it appears that the HEO Flights were all joint ventures with
> > AMSAT-NA and AMSAT-DL. I recall a great deal of publicity in QST
> > surrounding the AO40 launch including fund raising activities. Why don't
> > we
> > observe the same level of commitment that we had for those projects from
> > AMSAT-NA Leadership?.
> >
> > AO40 provided extraordinary opportunities for the satellite experimenter,
> > it
> > wasn't that difficult and was great deal of fun. Additionally, it did push
> > the operator to work on improving their station for weak signal work.
> > Remember all of the great AO40 how to web sites that popped up?
> > Lots of home brew projects! Lots of pictures of stations!
> > How many of those are out there for AO51?
> >
> > I believe for those who endeavored to develop hardware and software
> > definitely
> > furthered the science. I constructed many different antennas and feeds
> > learned a
> > great deal all in my back yard with minimal investment using "arm strong"
> > , home-brew az-el set up.
> >
> > Regarding GEO vs. HEO, I would argue that in terms of the overall
> > experience, there are significant differences that boil down to the
> > following::
> > 1. GEO isn't a moving target
> > 2. HEO has a weaker signal
> > 3. With GEO, the antenna is locked down to a fixed Az-EL. No Doppler, no
> > need to synchronize the orbit or to integrate software applications.
> >
> > I would challenge you to tell me how GEO wouldn't be an appliance. What's
> > left
> > once you mount your Downconverter, feed, LNA, etc, bring it to your xcvr,
> > short of tuning across the transponder to find a clear frequency to call
> > CQ,
> > or to locate a contact what's left to do? I agree that GEO would be great
> > for emergencies, nets, and long rag chews on what will be extremely
> > crowded xponder space.
> > Additionally, I think that you would agree that the skill level and
> > overall experience is diminished. But
> > that's just me.
> >
> > All I'm saying is allow the membership vote on how AMSAT-NA resources
> > should
> > be used, I don't mean to suggest we vote on the type of RX to use, but on
> > the overall project.
> > It is my belief that most members wouldn't want resources diverted to a
> > GEO Project before an HEO Project is fully deployed.
> > If we loose sight of the main goal, this process could go on for years.
> > To be successful, AMSAT-NA needs a narrow focus as it has very little in
> > the way of resources, both human and financial.
> >
> > I would be satisfied if AMSAT-NA would simply articulate a clear set of
> > goals and priorities, hell even use the survey that was accomplished in
> > 04.
> > Communicate these goals to the members at large and finally stand by them.
> > If at the end of the day those goals are not what the members want, then
> > they can vote with their wallets.
> >
> > Regards,
> > - Joe K7ZT
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>
> > To: "Joe Westbrook" <k7zt(AT)suddenlink.net>; "Luc Leblanc"
> > <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>; <eu-amsat(AT)yahoogroups.com>
> > Cc: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
> > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: [eu-amsat] AMSAT UK P3E Lecture Available
> >
> >
> >> Since AMSAT-DL and AMSAT-NA both require funding from outside the amateur
> >> radio community, are going after different sources of funding, and
> >> neither
> >> can predict when they will get that funding, having two efforts would
> >> seem
> >> to double the opportunity for a non-LEO satellite.
> >>
> >> I don't think that the risk decreases with P3E. 50% of P3 satellites were
> >> lost due to failures of engines in the launch vehicle or in the
> >> satellite.
> >>
> >> I don't see how having a linear transponder in a geostationary orbit
> >> versus a Molniya orbit makes it an appliance satellite. The antennas and
> >> transceivers on ground are the same in either case.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >> John
> >> KD6OZH
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Joe Westbrook" <k7zt(AT)suddenlink.net>
> >> To: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>; "Luc Leblanc"
> >> <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>; <eu-amsat(AT)yahoogroups.com>
> >> Cc: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
> >> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 16:32 UTC
> >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [eu-amsat] AMSAT UK P3E Lecture Available
> >>
> >>
> >>> John:
> >>> Yes, you may have heard statements like in the past we've relied on
> >>> charity,
> >>> and Amateur Radio Operators alone can not fund a launch, what you
> >>> haven't
> >>> heard are any solutions for launching any HEOs. It seems that the DL
> >>> folks
> >>> haven't lost that as a focus, they acknowledge that as expensive as it
> >>> is
> >>> to
> >>> launch an HEO, it is still doable. 3 - 4M Euros $4 - 5M at least they
> >>> gave
> >>> us a tangible figure we can work with. This amount may be a reach for
> >>> AMSAT-NA alone, but given that we finally understand what it would take
> >>> to
> >>> make a HEO Launch reality, then why wouldn't we shift ALL funding toward
> >>> that effort? Following the PE3 launch, if any surplus remains, the
> >>> surplus could be transferred to the next HEO opportunity (Eagle). If no
> >>> surplus remains then at least we would have one working HEO deployed.
> >>>
> >>> Additionally, at least we know the PE3 platform is well vetted, and
> >>> would
> >>> have the lowest risk. Rather than spending time and resources on a new,
> >>> untested platform why wouldn't we just facilitate PE3 FIRST?
> >>>
> >>> Ok, I'll speech for myself here, but the GEO ride-share simply isn't an
> >>> opportunity that will interest the HEO crowd. Launching an appliance to
> >>> serve the disaster response community and entry level satellite users
> >>> won't
> >>> do a thing to satisfy the need for a HEO. I don't care if it's free,
> >>> like
> >>> AO51, I would probably get on it, make a couple contacts say "that's
> >>> nice"
> >>> and be done with it. Please understand, I'm not saying to abandon GEO
> >>> as
> >>> a
> >>> viable option, just don't spend a cent on it until we launch an HEO.
> >>>
> >>> What we need is a satellite that enables the real sprit and intent of
> >>> the
> >>> Amateur Radio Service, to push the envelop of the technology, allow for
> >>> experimentation, consider all of the alternative antenna solutions that
> >>> our
> >>> resourceful community developed to receive the 2.4Gig Down Link. No
> >>> rotator
> >>> required, different feed systems, a fairly modest resource outlay to get
> >>> on
> >>> the air. I did it with a totally home brewed system in a restricted
> >>> neighborhood back yard. Had a blast and learned allot.
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>
> >>> To: "Luc Leblanc" <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>; <eu-
amsat(AT)yahoogroups.com>
> >>> Cc: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
> >>> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 3:14 PM
> >>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [eu-amsat] AMSAT UK P3E Lecture Available
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I've been hearing these two statments from AMSAT-NA officals for at
> >>>> least
> >>>> 2
> >>>> years -- in person and on this BB.
> >>>>
> >>>> 73,
> >>>>
> >>>> John
> >>>> KD6OZH
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: "Luc Leblanc" <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Very nice presentations. One attract my attention was made by Peter
> >>>>> Guelzow DB2OS one one of his slide we can read:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ATTRACTIVENESS OF AMATEUR RADIO HAS DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY
> >>>>>
> >>>>> FUNDING A SATELLITE FROM AMATEUR RESSOURCES ALONE NEVER WORKED BEFORE
> >>>>> AND
> >>>>> WILL NOT WORK NOW.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't how to explain how all the wisdom and reality knowledge seems
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> be concentrated in Europe when speaking about amateur satellite?
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the
> >>>> author.
> >>>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
> >>>> program!
> >>>> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Sent via AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the
author.
> >>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
> >>> program!
> >>> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> >>
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sent via AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
>Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
>Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:50:04 -0500
From: "Joe Westbrook" <k7zt(AT)suddenlink.net>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AMSAT UK P3E Lecture HEO vs GEO. and AMSAT-NA
Priorities
To: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>, <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <001701c8fc60$cbf79700$0302a8c0(AT)corp.global.level3.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
John:
I agree, the GEO Ride would be safer than a Amateur Radio rocket boost into
final orbit, my argument simply had nothing to do with the Ride Share
option.
I get the GEO / Molmiya differences, and I still maintain that in terms of
getting a Molniya Bird into orbit AMSAT-DL has the experience, tested
platform, etc.
AMSAT-NA needs to make this distinction in the Eagle mission statement, as
it has a significant bearing on the nature of the satellite experence.
In case anyone who hasn't seen the latest survey of AMSAT Users, here is the
link:
http://app.sgizmo.com/reports/18952/48864/4G6MMZP08F5CHHRFD5IFKRUG0SX47H/
Additionally AMSAT needs to have an up/down vote on the ride share to GEO
option detailing its abilities and limitations and impact on any possibility
of a future HEO Launch. It appears that leadership is allowing realities of
a rare, expensive launch opportunity drive the mission rather than the
mission driving the launch method, it's a bit like the tail wagging the dog
don't you think?
If the mission has changed to.the prospect of abandoning HEO for a GEO Bird
I personally would find that to be unacceptable.. I have no interest in the
Amateur Radio
version of XM Satellite (2-Way) Radio even if it is the only viable
alternative to secure a launch.
I completely understand that many members may give a nod to a GEO Satellite
Ride Share option in lieu of an HEO (Molmiya Orbit) Satellite and that's ok
but again, that decision should be
made by the AMSAT-NA Membership and NOT the BoD alone and it should happen
before we get too far down the
development road.
I'm very happy to hear that our European counterparts have been creative and
may have a niche fit for PE3 that could get the launch funded.
My money rides on PE3!
73's, DE Joe, K7ZT
----- Original Message -----
From: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>
To: "Joe Westbrook" <k7zt(AT)suddenlink.net>; <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: AMSAT UK P3E Lecture HEO vs GEO. and AMSAT-NA Priorities
> Hi Joe,
>
> The Eagle ride-share requires no engine from AMSAT as it is supplied by
> and operated by Intelsat. They have an order of magnitude more experience
> than any AMSAT organization and a better track record. It also eliminates
> more than half of the work in building the satellite. That has to reduce
> risk.
>
> AMSAT-NA members are working on P3E and AMSAT-NA has supplied money for
> the project so I don't see a lack of support.
>
> Since a HEO and GEO are at similar altitudes, I don't forsee a big
> difference in signal strength. The only disadvantage of a GEO for hams is
> that it doesn't move so I can't work India from here as I could on AO-13.
> However, Molniya orbits aren't very useful to outside funders so there is
> an advantage in raising funds. Making satellites hard to use certainly
> doesn't help in rasing money. The aspect of AO-40 that QST pushed during
> fund-rasing was that it would be easier to use than AO-13.
>
> 73,
>
> John
> KD6OZH
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Westbrook" <k7zt(AT)suddenlink.net>
> To: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>; <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 22:06 UTC
> Subject: AMSAT UK P3E Lecture HEO vs GEO. and AMSAT-NA Priorities
>
>
>> John:
>> So regarding risk, how many HEO Satellites has AMSAT-NA launched that
>> required firing a rocket motor to achieve a Molniya Orbit?
>> It seems that AMSAT-DL has the lead on that front, additionally, the
>> gentleman that did the PE3 Presentation at the AMSAT-UK Symposium
>> indicated
>> that PE3 uses the same platform as AO10 and AO13, and has been tested.
>> At
>> least we have a more predictable risk. I took a look at the Satellite
>> history and it appears that the HEO Flights were all joint ventures with
>> AMSAT-NA and AMSAT-DL. I recall a great deal of publicity in QST
>> surrounding the AO40 launch including fund raising activities. Why don't
>> we
>> observe the same level of commitment that we had for those projects from
>> AMSAT-NA Leadership?.
>>
>> AO40 provided extraordinary opportunities for the satellite experimenter,
>> it
>> wasn't that difficult and was great deal of fun. Additionally, it did
>> push
>> the operator to work on improving their station for weak signal work.
>> Remember all of the great AO40 how to web sites that popped up?
>> Lots of home brew projects! Lots of pictures of stations!
>> How many of those are out there for AO51?
>>
>> I believe for those who endeavored to develop hardware and software
>> definitely
>> furthered the science. I constructed many different antennas and feeds
>> learned a
>> great deal all in my back yard with minimal investment using "arm strong"
>> , home-brew az-el set up.
>>
>> Regarding GEO vs. HEO, I would argue that in terms of the overall
>> experience, there are significant differences that boil down to the
>> following::
>> 1. GEO isn't a moving target
>> 2. HEO has a weaker signal
>> 3. With GEO, the antenna is locked down to a fixed Az-EL. No Doppler, no
>> need to synchronize the orbit or to integrate software applications.
>>
>> I would challenge you to tell me how GEO wouldn't be an appliance. What's
>> left
>> once you mount your Downconverter, feed, LNA, etc, bring it to your xcvr,
>> short of tuning across the transponder to find a clear frequency to call
>> CQ,
>> or to locate a contact what's left to do? I agree that GEO would be
>> great
>> for emergencies, nets, and long rag chews on what will be extremely
>> crowded xponder space.
>> Additionally, I think that you would agree that the skill level and
>> overall experience is diminished. But
>> that's just me.
>>
>> All I'm saying is allow the membership vote on how AMSAT-NA resources
>> should
>> be used, I don't mean to suggest we vote on the type of RX to use, but on
>> the overall project.
>> It is my belief that most members wouldn't want resources diverted to a
>> GEO Project before an HEO Project is fully deployed.
>> If we loose sight of the main goal, this process could go on for years.
>> To be successful, AMSAT-NA needs a narrow focus as it has very little in
>> the way of resources, both human and financial.
>>
>> I would be satisfied if AMSAT-NA would simply articulate a clear set of
>> goals and priorities, hell even use the survey that was accomplished in
>> 04.
>> Communicate these goals to the members at large and finally stand by
>> them.
>> If at the end of the day those goals are not what the members want, then
>> they can vote with their wallets.
>>
>> Regards,
>> - Joe K7ZT
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>
>> To: "Joe Westbrook" <k7zt(AT)suddenlink.net>; "Luc Leblanc"
>> <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>; <eu-amsat(AT)yahoogroups.com>
>> Cc: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
>> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:12 PM
>> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: [eu-amsat] AMSAT UK P3E Lecture Available
>>
>>
>>> Since AMSAT-DL and AMSAT-NA both require funding from outside the
>>> amateur
>>> radio community, are going after different sources of funding, and
>>> neither
>>> can predict when they will get that funding, having two efforts would
>>> seem
>>> to double the opportunity for a non-LEO satellite.
>>>
>>> I don't think that the risk decreases with P3E. 50% of P3 satellites
>>> were
>>> lost due to failures of engines in the launch vehicle or in the
>>> satellite.
>>>
>>> I don't see how having a linear transponder in a geostationary orbit
>>> versus a Molniya orbit makes it an appliance satellite. The antennas and
>>> transceivers on ground are the same in either case.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> John
>>> KD6OZH
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Joe Westbrook" <k7zt(AT)suddenlink.net>
>>> To: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>; "Luc Leblanc"
>>> <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>; <eu-amsat(AT)yahoogroups.com>
>>> Cc: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 16:32 UTC
>>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [eu-amsat] AMSAT UK P3E Lecture Available
>>>
>>>
>>>> John:
>>>> Yes, you may have heard statements like in the past we've relied on
>>>> charity,
>>>> and Amateur Radio Operators alone can not fund a launch, what you
>>>> haven't
>>>> heard are any solutions for launching any HEOs. It seems that the DL
>>>> folks
>>>> haven't lost that as a focus, they acknowledge that as expensive as it
>>>> is
>>>> to
>>>> launch an HEO, it is still doable. 3 - 4M Euros $4 - 5M at least they
>>>> gave
>>>> us a tangible figure we can work with. This amount may be a reach for
>>>> AMSAT-NA alone, but given that we finally understand what it would take
>>>> to
>>>> make a HEO Launch reality, then why wouldn't we shift ALL funding
>>>> toward
>>>> that effort? Following the PE3 launch, if any surplus remains, the
>>>> surplus could be transferred to the next HEO opportunity (Eagle). If
>>>> no
>>>> surplus remains then at least we would have one working HEO deployed.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, at least we know the PE3 platform is well vetted, and
>>>> would
>>>> have the lowest risk. Rather than spending time and resources on a
>>>> new,
>>>> untested platform why wouldn't we just facilitate PE3 FIRST?
>>>>
>>>> Ok, I'll speech for myself here, but the GEO ride-share simply isn't an
>>>> opportunity that will interest the HEO crowd. Launching an appliance
>>>> to
>>>> serve the disaster response community and entry level satellite users
>>>> won't
>>>> do a thing to satisfy the need for a HEO. I don't care if it's free,
>>>> like
>>>> AO51, I would probably get on it, make a couple contacts say "that's
>>>> nice"
>>>> and be done with it. Please understand, I'm not saying to abandon GEO
>>>> as
>>>> a
>>>> viable option, just don't spend a cent on it until we launch an HEO.
>>>>
>>>> What we need is a satellite that enables the real sprit and intent of
>>>> the
>>>> Amateur Radio Service, to push the envelop of the technology, allow for
>>>> experimentation, consider all of the alternative antenna solutions that
>>>> our
>>>> resourceful community developed to receive the 2.4Gig Down Link. No
>>>> rotator
>>>> required, different feed systems, a fairly modest resource outlay to
>>>> get
>>>> on
>>>> the air. I did it with a totally home brewed system in a restricted
>>>> neighborhood back yard. Had a blast and learned allot.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "John B. Stephensen" <kd6ozh(AT)comcast.net>
>>>> To: "Luc Leblanc" <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>;
>>>> <eu-amsat(AT)yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Cc: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 3:14 PM
>>>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [eu-amsat] AMSAT UK P3E Lecture Available
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've been hearing these two statments from AMSAT-NA officals for at
>>>>> least
>>>>> 2
>>>>> years -- in person and on this BB.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73,
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>> KD6OZH
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Luc Leblanc" <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very nice presentations. One attract my attention was made by Peter
>>>>>> Guelzow DB2OS one one of his slide we can read:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ATTRACTIVENESS OF AMATEUR RADIO HAS DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FUNDING A SATELLITE FROM AMATEUR RESSOURCES ALONE NEVER WORKED BEFORE
>>>>>> AND
>>>>>> WILL NOT WORK NOW.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't how to explain how all the wisdom and reality knowledge seems
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be concentrated in Europe when speaking about amateur satellite?
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the
>>>>> author.
>>>>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
>>>>> program!
>>>>> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the
>>>> author.
>>>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
>>>> program!
>>>> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>>>
>>
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 3, Issue 407
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
