| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 06.11.08 22:22l 666 Lines 23219 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 47102_CX2SA
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V3 575
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<HB9TVW<DB0ANF<CX2SA
Sent: 081106/2019Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:47102 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:47102_CX2SA
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Viewing AO-51 (Clint Bradford)
2. Re: visual sighting of amateur satellites (Luc Leblanc)
3. Re: Visual sightings of satellites (Paul Williamson)
4. Re: visual sighting of amateur satellites (Graham Shirville)
5. viewing satellites (Jim Danehy)
6. GO-32 Observation. (Dave Aitch)
7. Re: visual sighting of amateur satellites (Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF)
8. QSLs from WD9EWK (DM23/DM24) last weekend
(Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK))
9. Station Recommendations (Josh Smith)
10. Re: GO-32 (Patrick Domack)
11. Neked-eye viewing (n3tl@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx
12. Visual sightings and IT (Dave Guimont)
13. some additional comments on visual sighting (Jim Danehy)
14. Re: some additional comments on visual sighting (Curt Nixon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 22:36:21 -0800
From: Clint Bradford <clintbrad4d@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Viewing AO-51
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <77D3DFB8-6CBA-443D-B6F6-58CB219D2F55@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
> I believe it is impossible to get a visual sighting of something
> that small at that height. There are thousands of objects in orbit
> around our earth. A bag of groceries at 300 miles up would take more
> seeing ability than a human set of eyes can provide.
Pssst, Jim: You saw the ISS just the same way I saw AO-51. Neither of
us saw the bird without it being illuminated by another source for us.
Clint Bradford
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:37:46 -0500
From: Luc Leblanc <lucleblanc6@xxxxxxxxx.xx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: visual sighting of amateur satellites
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <49123C5A.29123.2FF410D@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On 6 Nov 2008 at 18:01, Hilton Meyer wrote:
>
> Hi Steve and Jim,
> I well remember seeing Sputnik pass over several times and listening to
> the beep, beep , beep from the beacon, which from memory was on around
> 20MHz. Two ham friends and I sat on my shack roof to observe the passes,
> here in Napier, New Zealand.
> 73
> Hilton ZL2MN
>
>
>
> >> AO 51 is about 25 cm on a side. That is about the size of a sack of
> >> groceries. I do not know the exact height of AO 51 but I know it is
> >> higher
> >> than the ISS (200 miles). I think AO 51 is about 250 to 300 miles up.
> >>
> >> I believe it is impossible to get a visual sighting of something that
> >> small
> >> at that height. There are thousands of objects in orbit around our
> >> earth. A
> >> bag of groceries at 300 miles up would take more seeing ability than a
> >> human set of eyes can provide.
> >>
> >> Jim W9VNE
> >>
> >
I dust off STSPLUS and i remember this program give the pass where the
satellite is visible. It works very well with ISS and the shuttle
The magnitute of AO-51 is the key here try STSPLUS il will give you the time
and the orbits where AO-51 is visible. Again the V visible
mean the sun is illuminating the satellite. but this does not confirm that the
satellite is really visible. . It works for ISS but i think
not for AO-51. At least the you will not have to watch each and every pass to
get the right one.
"-"
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE
Skype VE2DWE
www.qsl.net/ve2dwe
WAC BASIC CW PHONE SATELLITE
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 23:18:05 -0800
From: Paul Williamson <kb5mu@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Visual sightings of satellites
To: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <a06230903c53846ab3002@xxxx.xxx.x.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>... when the reflections were the best possible from
>the standpoint of being on the earth, would AO 51 then be
>visable?
In a word, no. It's too small. A spacecraft of that size would be a very dim
object. Even in a dark sky (if you can still find one!) you'd need at least
binoculars to have a chance.
InstantTrack includes a very basic algorithm for estimating the visual
magnitude of a satellite based on its size. InstantTrack says that AO-51 would
be about the brightness of a magnitude 10 to 13 star, when it's illuminated by
the sun and it's dark on the ground. A magnitude 9 star would require a very
dark sky to see, so a magnitude 10 or dimmer star would not be a naked-eye
object.
Now that estimate is based on a sphere, not on a "glint" specular reflection.
You may be familiar with the so-called "Iridium flare", where an
extraordinarily bright reflection is seen briefly from an Iridium satellite
when the geometry is exactly right. That happens because the Iridium
satellites have extremely tight attitude control (and because they have large
flat surfaces). AO-51's attitude is constantly varying by small amounts, and
it's spinning. There would be no way to predict exactly when a glint might be
geometrically possible, and the duration of the glint would be fleeting
indeed. I don't believe it would be possible to see it.
73 -Paul
kb5mu@xxxxx.xxx
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:21:59 -0000
From: "Graham Shirville" <g.shirville@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: visual sighting of amateur satellites
To: "Hilton Meyer" <hmeyer@xxxxx.xxx.xx>, <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <BF122CEEAD20445FB3209DB9BBCF2DD0@xxxxxxx.xxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hi All,
Recent TV programmes have pointed out that most reports of Sputnik 1
sightings were actually where people had seen the R7 final stage rocket
body...which was obviously a much bigger object than the spacecraft!
But then, at the age of 9 I convinced myself that I heard its 20Mhz signals
on the family radiogram:)
73
Graham
G3VZV
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hilton Meyer" <hmeyer@xxxxx.xxx.xx>
To: <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:01 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: visual sighting of amateur satellites
>
> Hi Steve and Jim,
> I well remember seeing Sputnik pass over several times and listening to
> the beep, beep , beep from the beacon, which from memory was on around
> 20MHz. Two ham friends and I sat on my shack roof to observe the passes,
> here in Napier, New Zealand.
> 73
> Hilton ZL2MN
>
>
>
>
>
>
> STeve Andre' wrote:
>> On Wednesday 05 November 2008 21:59:59 Jim Danehy wrote:
>>
>>> I have often seen the ISS in the evening sky. Its elevation is about 200
>>> miles up. It is a fairly large object measuring more than 310 feet
>>> wide and
>>> 225 feet long. It is about 150 feet in height. It is too big to fit
>>> into a
>>> football field at 310' x 225'. It is quite the sight. A couple of
>>> weeks ago
>>> after I worked Richard I saw the ISS by stepping outside. It was a great
>>> dark morning and the ISS probably had the brightness on the solar
>>> scale of
>>> 1. The sun is -27 and the brightest object for us on earth. The -27
>>> being
>>> the bright side ; as you go to a more positive number the object is
>>> dimmer.
>>>
>>> AO 51 is about 25 cm on a side. That is about the size of a sack of
>>> groceries. I do not know the exact height of AO 51 but I know it is
>>> higher
>>> than the ISS (200 miles). I think AO 51 is about 250 to 300 miles up.
>>>
>>> I believe it is impossible to get a visual sighting of something that
>>> small
>>> at that height. There are thousands of objects in orbit around our
>>> earth. A
>>> bag of groceries at 300 miles up would take more seeing ability than a
>>> human set of eyes can provide.
>>>
>>> Jim W9VNE
>>>
>>
>> I've often wondered about this--I have no direct knowledge on this, but
>> what you say seems reasonable.
>>
>> Except that I'm pretty sure that US Air Force people saw Sputnik. Not
>> sure
>> how big it was compared to AO 51.
>>
>> The other factor here might be the sun--glinting in the sun, wouldn't
>> AO 51
>> be far more visable ?
>>
>> --STeve Andre'
>> wb8wsf en82
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database:
>> 270.9.0/1770 - Release Date: 11/5/2008 5:36 PM
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 06:37:07 -0500
From: "Jim Danehy" <jdanehy@xxxxx.xx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] viewing satellites
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <F8700EE534CB421A8BB14C86E90A9D4A@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I said in my original post on this subject I am not here to persuade . . . I
am interested in helping to understand (education) . . . AO 51 is 9" X 9" X
9" . . . see AMSAT website where they use ~25cm cubed . . . the ISS is
~10,000,000 cubic feet versus less than 1 cubic foot for AO 51 . . .YES you
can "see" the sun reflect off the 10,000,000 cubic foot object but not the
less than HALF A CUBIC FOOT AO 51
Like anything we all see REFLECTIONS of the sun; that is a physicists
definition . . . without the sun you "see" nothing . . . I have SEEN the
relatively large 300' X 225' X 150' ISS which is the sun's reflection . . .
. I have seen dozens of Iridium flares which last for about 2 or 3 seconds
depending on certain factors . . . no argument from me on whether someone
"saw" something . .
. i guess if you think you saw something 9 " X 9" X 9" from 300 miles up
you will continue to believe that . . . it just is not factual . . . . now
the ISS is large enough . . . its star magnitude does vary depending on
factors but is generally about a 1 which is certainly visible . . . as
somebody said AO 51 would be a 15 or so magnitude which is way way beyond
seeing . . . most very dim stars are 3 and 4 and believe me that is 100 db up
(so to speak) from AO 51 at 15. As a matter of fact you can not see beyond a
4th magnitude star and if you are older your vision might not even allow that
. . .
believe what you want ; I think physics is great (pretty factual). Folks
believe in a lot of stuff but unfortunately a lot is not factual . . . the
"glints" of sunlight off the Iridium satellites are spectacular though but
last for a second or so . . . imagine seeing something the size of a 6 pack
of beverages 300 miles up with you naked eye . . . . impossible . . .
Jim W9VNE
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:10:53 -0000
From: "Dave Aitch" <dave@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] GO-32 Observation.
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <006001c94008$b7abdea0$27039be0$@xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sorry if this has been mentioned already.
Over the last couple of days I have been trying
to work GO-32 9K6 data BBS.
I sorted the continuous request for the DIR by
deleting the appropriate file.
I sent a test message, which was accepted.
The DIR was requested but no data downloaded.
I tried again this morning. DIR requested, along
with others in the queue, but nothing downloaded.
Uploaded a short message to myself agn, noted the msg
number and requested to download it, but again,
no response, but my call sign appeared in the queue
to download the msg, as it does when requesting the
directory.
So 32 will accept files transmitted to it, but
doesn't respond to files requested from it.
Hope this helps someone somewhere.
73, Dave. G1OCN. AMSAT UK 5766
Portland. Dorset.
IO80SM.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 12:32:42 +0000
From: Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF <nigel@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: visual sighting of amateur satellites
To: Luc Leblanc <lucleblanc6@xxxxxxxxx.xx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <4912E3EA.8060508@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
So does Orbitron.
Luc Leblanc wrote:
> I dust off STSPLUS and i remember this program give the pass where the
satellite is visible. It works very well with ISS and the shuttle
> The magnitute of AO-51 is the key here try STSPLUS il will give you the time
and the orbits where AO-51 is visible. Again the V visible
> mean the sun is illuminating the satellite. but this does not confirm that
the satellite is really visible. . It works for ISS but i think
> not for AO-51. At least the you will not have to watch each and every pass
to get the right one.
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 06:32:20 -0800 (PST)
From: "Patrick STODDARD \(WD9EWK/VA7EWK\)" <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] QSLs from WD9EWK (DM23/DM24) last weekend
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <812341.5763.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi!
I was planning to send out QSLs for stations that worked me last
weekend, when I was out in California in DM23/DM24, before my trip
to Vancouver. I mailed a few out, responding to QSLs I already
received. The rest will be mailed when I return from Canada, in
case I have more cards to send to those stations. I already have
cards printed for that trip, and I have a template already set up
for CJ7EWK this weekend. I apologize to those who may have been
expecting my QSLs in the mail this week from last weekend's quick
trip.
Thanks, and 73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK (soon, CJ7EWK)
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 09:37:29 -0500
From: "Josh Smith" <juicewvu@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Station Recommendations
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<d3bf5a870811060637y395ab217i8c4e8410763b1544@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hello everyone,
I am fairly new to the armature radio hobby and am in the market for a
station. I have all but decided on an icom ic-7000 all mode/most band
transceiver. But I have recently been experimenting with some of the
easy sats (ao-51,iss,etc) and wanted to know if anyone here has used
the ic-7000 for some light satellite work and how it works for this
purpose.
Thank you,
--
Josh Smith
KD8HRX
email/jabber: juicewvu@xxxxx.xxx
phone: 304.237.9369(c)
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:50:02 -0500
From: Patrick Domack <patrickdk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: GO-32
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <20081106095002.660upa02w0ogo4oo@xxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
format="flowed"
Personally I am using two memory freqs for it, side a for transmit,
and side b for receive.
This can be saved into a pm setting without issue.
I have never tried to setup this on a single side before, so dunno if
it can or cannot be done.
Quoting VE3FAL-Fred <flesnick@xxxxxxx.xxx>:
> Was hoping to set up my TH-D700 for UHF/VHF split to work this bird.
> Tried using the programming software but it wont take. I
> guess these radio's were not made to do split like the THG-7 will.
> Do I need to use A and B VFO to be able to work this bird?
> The TH-D700 is not exactly the most user friendly radio to use
> without a cheat sheet. If I set up the vfo's to work this bird can
> that setup be saved to go there again in one of the programmable settings?
>
>
> Thanks
> Fred
> VE3FAL
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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: 11
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:23:23 +0000
From: n3tl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Neked-eye viewing
To: AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<110620081523.11687.49130BEB00046BB200002DA722230682329B0A02D2089B9A019C
04040A0DBF049BCC02@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain
Hey everyone,
I've followed with interest the recent posts about viewing AO-51 with the
naked eye. With all due respect to previous posters, I'd like to offer a
couple of thoughts.
First and most importantly, the relative magnitude of the celestial body in
question - not its size - determines our ability to view it with the naked
eye. I'm confident that everyone has, at one time or another, seen a meteor
that was smaller than a 25cm cube. This is a case where size doesn't matter.
More about that later.
Second, the relative darkness of the sky is the next most-affecting factor, I
believe. Here in Athens, Ga., we don't have nearly the light pollution that
folks who live an hour west of me must endure in the greater Atlanta area. But
my skies aren't nearly as dark as those an hour east of me, in the rural areas
of east-central Ga. and southwestern S.C. I see more here, routinely, than
folks in Atlanta do. But folks another hour east see more, routinely, than I.
As was noted in a previous post, Orbitron shows the relative magnitude of
satellites users ask it to track. With that in mind, I ran a 2-week prediction
schedule for AO-51 to see how bright it would be in the night sky. Neither
Orbitron nor any stargazing program takes relative light pollution into
account. They provide predictions of magnitude. The more light pollution one
has to deal with, the brighter an object will have to be for naked-eye
viewing.
All of that being said - the brightest magnitude for AO-51 I was able to find
for the next 2 weeks is 9.0. I suspect that others who run Orbitron
predictions or those provided by other programs will find that a magnitude in
the 9.0 range is about the brightest we'll get from the satellite.
When reporting magnitude, a lower number means a brighter object. I do not
believe it is possible for anyone who lives even on the fringes of a
metropolitan area to see (with the naked eye) any celestial body with a 9.0
magnitude. That includes the ISS. Naked-eye seeing in the night skies isn't
about the size of the object, it's about its brightness (i.e., level of
illumination). I just ran Orbitron's simulation mode and, using Los Angeles as
my location, learned that during the 02:05-ish UTC pass of AO-51 (6:05 p.m.,
in southern California), it's brightest magnitude was 9.1. Based on that, I do
not believe Clint saw AO-51.
On two occasions in the past year (i.e., since I finally picked up a halfway
decent telescope!), I have been lucky enough to be looking at a star or planet
when some satellite zoomed by in my field of view. It was pretty cool to see,
and I consider myself fortunate. I recently picked up a pair of Nikon zoom
binoculars (10x-25x x 50mm) for wide-field viewing, and I'm going to try to
"find" our FM LEO satellites in the night sky with them in the coming days and
weeks. I will not see them from here with my naked eye.
73 to all,
Tim - N3TL
AMSAT Member No. 36820
Athens, Ga, - EM84ha
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:07:38 -0800
From: Dave Guimont <dguimon1@xxx.xx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Visual sightings and IT
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID:
<20081106180739.QUYG7376.cdptpa-omta05.mail.rr.com@xxxx.xxx.xx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
I use Heavens Above for a quick forecast of any visual sightings, but
I use IT for accurate AZ/EL printout information in the event of a
partial overcast...
The "seeing" is generally not very good in San Diego to begin with,
and I live away from the city lights....
73, Dave, WB6LLO
dguimon1@xxx.xx.xxx
Disagree: I learn....
Pulling for P3E...
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 13:50:36 -0500
From: "Jim Danehy" <jdanehy@xxxxx.xx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] some additional comments on visual sighting
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <6FD7FEE47CF642C799E6612F1B876753@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
the accepted opinion of astronomers is that you can see +6 magnitude stars
without the assistance of a telescope or binoculars . . . . if AO 51 is +9
then it is virtually impossible to see it with the naked eye . . .
as for comets : well in order for comets to be seen those small particles that
you see must be within the Karman line . . . which is at 62 miles (up) . . .
the atmosphere pretty well ends at 75 to 80 miles up . . . in order for those
objects to be seen they must be within the atmosphere where they "burn up" by
friction against the "air" atmosphere (. . . AO 51 is some 300 miles or 400
miles up and the ISS is 200 miles up . . .
the sun is - 27 and we all know the brightest thing out there for us here on
earth . . . . +6 for naked eye viewing . . . +9 is not visible
Jim W9VNE
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:57:19 -0500
From: Curt Nixon <cptcurt@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: some additional comments on visual sighting
To: Jim Danehy <jdanehy@xxxxx.xx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <49134C1F.3080205@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi Jim:
You are of course referring to Meteors not Comets. The
gaseous/particulate clouds streaming from comets are visible millions of
miles out when they get energy from the sun.
Curt
KU8L
Jim Danehy wrote:
> the accepted opinion of astronomers is that you can see +6 magnitude stars
without the assistance of a telescope or binoculars . . . . if AO 51 is +9
then it is virtually impossible to see it with the naked eye . . .
>
> as for comets : well in order for comets to be seen those small particles
that you see must be within the Karman line . . . which is at 62 miles (up) .
. . the atmosphere pretty well ends at 75 to 80 miles up . . . in order for
those objects to be seen they must be within the atmosphere where they "burn
up" by friction against the "air" atmosphere (. . . AO 51 is some 300 miles
or 400 miles up and the ISS is 200 miles up . . .
>
> the sun is - 27 and we all know the brightest thing out there for us here
on earth . . . . +6 for naked eye viewing . . . +9 is not visible
>
> Jim W9VNE
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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 575
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
