New equipment wouldn't be needed. The concept is to use the PCs that
amateurs already have to fit more QSOs into the downlink. Uplink frequency
coordination isn't any harder than on AO10, 13 or 40.
73,
John
KD6OZH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Virgil Bierschwale" <vbier...@gmail.com>
To: "'John Stephensen'" <kd6...@comcast.net>; "'Clint Bradford'"
<clintbra...@earthlink.net>; <amsat-bb@amsat.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 03:13 UTC
Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
You also could develop a whole new line of amateur radio equipment.
By that, I mean that ham's could use existing transceivers, and for
satellites that were equipped, they could buy this box that would allow
them
to transmit on channel ?? of frequency ?? and the same on receive.
Of course, that might present a co-ordination nightmare...
Virgil
N5IVV
-----Original Message-----
From: John Stephensen [mailto:kd6...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 9:25 PM
To: Virgil Bierschwale; 'Clint Bradford'; amsat-bb@amsat.org
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
The satellite could collect the individual uplink signals and package them
in one downlink. One TDM downlink would use much less power than FDM
downlinks and would fit in the bandwidth of existing amateur receivers.
Once
you have DSP in the satellite, there are a lot of possibilities.
73,
John
KD6OZH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Virgil Bierschwale" <vbier...@gmail.com>
To: "'John Stephensen'" <kd6...@comcast.net>; "'Clint Bradford'"
<clintbra...@earthlink.net>; <amsat-bb@amsat.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 01:52 UTC
Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
I've enjoyed reading this segment and I wasn't going to touch it, but
this
one makes me want to chip in my two cents.
Granted, I'm not up to speed on what ya'll have done or what you haven't
done.
But we used to use a ucc1 in the navy to receive messages.
http://www.virhistory.com/navy/rtty-mux-ucc1.htm
It would allow us to receive something like 16 or 32 separate traffic
channels on one frequency.
Wouldn't it be possible to develop something like that in satellite
communications?
I ask because if you were to do it, you could substantially increase the
amount of channels that you could process?
Virgil
N5IVV
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] On
Behalf Of John Stephensen
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:31 PM
To: Clint Bradford; amsat-bb@amsat.org
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
If we want the most "bang for the buck", it would be something that
supports
the most QSOs per watt of solar power. Since most hams have computers,
something that supports half a dozen PSK31 sessions would suffice. Given
the
new open-source voice codec you could also make something that supports
multiple digital voice QSOs with less power than now required for analog
FM
or SSB.
73,
John
KD6OZH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clint Bradford" <clintbra...@earthlink.net>
To: <amsat-bb@amsat.org>; <amsat-bb@amsat.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 00:27 UTC
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
... launch opportunities are so rare that we ought to
fly the most capable equipment we can on those rare
occasions when we can get a launch ...
Perhaps we should define, "most capable equipment." And
we also need to define "bang for the buck."
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@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@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
