[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[John W Lee]

I wonder how many of those 50  are able to handle 
ham radio 2-way contacts ? 

K6YK
 
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:09:43 + Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF
 writes:
> Here's a list of all (known to me) satellites still in orbit with 
> some designed in (but not necessarily operational) 
> amateur band functionality.
> 
> For those that think nothing has been happening recently, there have 
> been 26 (so far) satellites launched this year, 13 
> in 2008 and 11 in 2007. Thats 50 birds in less than the past 3 
> years.
> 
> Catalog NumberCommon NameInternational 
> DesignatorComments
> 1293 OSCAR 3 1965-016F 
> 6236 OSCAR 6 1972-082B 
> 7530 OSCAR 7 1974-089B 
> 10703 OSCAR 8 1978-026B 
> 14129 OSCAR 10 1983-058B 
> 14781 OSCAR 11 (UoSAT 2) 1984-021B 
> 16909 JAS 1 (FUJI 1) 1986-061B 
> 20437 OSCAR 14 (UoSAT 3) 1990-005B 
> 20438 OSCAR 15 (UoSAT 4) 1990-005C 
> 20439 OSCAR 16 (PACSAT) 1990-005D 
> 20440 OSCAR 17 (DOVE) 1990-005E 
> 20441 OSCAR 18 (WEBERSAT) 1990-005F 
> 20442 OSCAR 19 (LUSAT) 1990-005G 
> 20480 JAS 1B (FUJI 2) 1990-013C 
> 21039 SL-12 R/B(1) 1990-116B 
> 21087 INFORMATOR 1 1991-006A 
> 21089 COSMOS 2123 1991-007A 
> 21575 OSCAR 22 (UoSAT 5) 1991-050B 
> 22825 KITSAT B 1993-061C 
> 22826 POSAT 1 1993-061D 
> 22828 ITAMSAT 1993-061F 
> 22829 EYESAT A 1993-061G 
> 23439 RADIO ROSTO 1994-085A 
> 24278 JAS 2 1996-046B 
> 24305 UNAMSAT 1996-052B 
> 25396 TMSAT 1998-043C 
> 25397 TECHSAT 1B 1998-043D 
> 25509 SEDSAT 1 1998-061B 
> 25520 PAN SAT 1998-064B 
> 25544 ISS (ZARYA) 1998-067A 
> 25636 SUNSAT 1999-008C 
> 25693 OSCAR 36 (UoSAT 12) 1999-021A 
> 25756 KITSAT 3 1999-029A 
> 26063 OPAL 2000-004C 
> 26545 SAUDISAT 1A 2000-057A 
> 26548 TIUNGSAT 1 2000-057D 
> 26609 AMSAT OSCAR 40 2000-072B 
> 26931 PCSAT 2001-043C 
> 26932 SAPPHIRE 2001-043D 
> 27605 RUBIN 2 2002-058A 
> 27607 SAUDISAT 1C 2002-058C 
> 27842 DTUSAT 2003-031C 
> 27844 CUTE-1 2003-031E 
> 27845 QUAKESAT 2003-031F 
> 27847 CANX-1 2003-031H 
> 27848 CUBESAT XI-IV 2003-031J 
> 27939 MOZHAYETS 4 2003-042A 
> 28375 AMSAT ECHO 2004-025K 
> 28650 HAMSAT 2005-017B 
> 28890 BEIJING 1 (TSINGHUA) 2005-043A 
> 28891 TOPSAT 2005-043B 
> 28892 UWE-1 2005-043C 
> 28893 SINAH 1 2005-043D 
> 28894 SSETI-EXPRESS 2005-043E 
> 28895 CUBESAT XI-V 2005-043F 
> 28897 SSETI-EXPRESS DEB 2005-043H 
> 28898 MOZ.5/SAFIR/RUBIN 5/SL-8 2005-043G 
> 28941 CUTE 1.7 2006-005C 
> 29252 GENESIS 1 2006-029A 
> 29479 HINODE (SOLAR B) 2006-041A 
> 29655 GENESAT 2006-058C 
> 29712 PEHUENSAT 1 2007-001D 
> 31117 EGYPTSAT 1 2007-012A 
> 31122 CSTB 1 2007-012F 
> 31126 MAST 2007-012K 
> 31128 LIBERTAD 1 2007-012M 
> 31129 CP3 2007-012N 
> 31130 CAPE 1 2007-012P 
> 31132 CP4 2007-012Q 
> 31135 AGILE 2007-013A 
> 31140 NFIRE 2007-014A 
> 31789 GENESIS 2 2007-028A 
> 32781 GIOVE-B 2008-020A 
> 32783 CARTOSAT 2A 2008-021A 
> 32784 CANX-6 2008-021B 
> 32785 CUTE 1.7 & AOD 2 2008-021C 
> 32786 IMS-1 2008-021D 
> 32787 COMPASS 1 2008-021E 
> 32788 AAUSAT CUBESAT 2 2008-021F 
> 32789 DELFI C3 2008-021G 
> 32790 CANX-2 2008-021H 
> 32791 SEEDS 2008-

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Rocky Jones]

I would trade everyone of them that launched in the last 3 years for the first 
five on the list being active ...OK we have 1 out of the first 5 but all five 
would be nice...

BTW I am quite sure Oscar V is still in orbit...but without ANY solar cell 
ability...we wont be hearing from it againand it wasnt a transponder  But I 
still have a tape of it...!

BTW Xenia OH is a cool place...when I was TDY in  Cleveland for a bit a friend 
who worked where I was flying has a farm there...he recently sold me some 
Silver Appleyard duck eggs to stock our pond...

Robert WB5MZO

> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:09:43 +
> From: ni...@ngunn.net
> To: amsat-bb@amsat.org
> Subject: [amsat-bb]  All Satellites
> 
> Here's a list of all (known to me) satellites still in orbit with some 
> designed in (but not necessarily operational) 
> amateur band functionality.
> 
> For those that think nothing has been happening recently, there have been 26 
> (so far) satellites launched this year, 13 
> in 2008 and 11 in 2007. Thats 50 birds in less than the past 3 years.
> 
> Catalog NumberCommon Name International DesignatorComments
> 1293  OSCAR 3 1965-016F   
> 6236  OSCAR 6 1972-082B   
> 7530  OSCAR 7 1974-089B   
> 10703 OSCAR 8 1978-026B   
> 14129 OSCAR 101983-058B   
> 14781 OSCAR 11 (UoSAT 2)  1984-021B   
> 16909 JAS 1 (FUJI 1)  1986-061B   
> 20437 OSCAR 14 (UoSAT 3)  1990-005B   
> 20438 OSCAR 15 (UoSAT 4)  1990-005C   
> 20439 OSCAR 16 (PACSAT)   1990-005D   
> 20440 OSCAR 17 (DOVE) 1990-005E   
> 20441 OSCAR 18 (WEBERSAT) 1990-005F   
> 20442 OSCAR 19 (LUSAT)1990-005G   
> 20480 JAS 1B (FUJI 2) 1990-013C   
> 21039 SL-12 R/B(1)1990-116B   
> 21087 INFORMATOR 11991-006A   
> 21089 COSMOS 2123 1991-007A   
> 21575 OSCAR 22 (UoSAT 5)  1991-050B   
> 22825 KITSAT B1993-061C   
> 22826 POSAT 1 1993-061D   
> 22828 ITAMSAT 1993-061F   
> 22829 EYESAT A1993-061G   
> 23439 RADIO ROSTO 1994-085A   
> 24278 JAS 2   1996-046B   
> 24305 UNAMSAT 1996-052B   
> 25396 TMSAT   1998-043C   
> 25397 TECHSAT 1B  1998-043D   
> 25509 SEDSAT 11998-061B   
> 25520 PAN SAT 1998-064B   
> 25544 ISS (ZARYA) 1998-067A   
> 25636 SUNSAT  1999-008C   
> 25693 OSCAR 36 (UoSAT 12) 1999-021A   
> 25756 KITSAT 31999-029A   
> 26063 OPAL2000-004C   
> 26545 SAUDISAT 1A 2000-057A   
> 26548 TIUNGSAT 1  2000-057D   
> 26609 AMSAT OSCAR 40  2000-072B   
> 26931 PCSAT   2001-043C   
> 26932 SAPPHIRE2001-043D   
> 27605 RUBIN 2 2002-058A   
> 27607 SAUDISAT 1C 2002-058C   
> 27842 DTUSAT  2003-031C   
> 27844 CUTE-1  2003-031E   
> 27845 QUAKESAT2003-031F   
> 27847 CANX-1  2003-031H   
> 27848 CUBESAT XI-IV   2003-031J   
> 27939 MOZHAYETS 4 2003-042A   
> 28375 AMSAT ECHO  2004-025K   
> 28650 HAMSAT  2005-017B   
> 28890 BEIJING 1 (TSINGHUA)2005-043A   
> 28891 TOPSAT  2005-043B   
> 28892 UWE-1   2005-043C   
> 28893 SINAH 1 2005-043D   
> 28894 SSETI-EXPRESS   2005-043E   
> 28895 CUBESAT XI-V2005-043F   
> 28897 SSETI-EXPRESS DEB   2005-043H   
> 28898 MOZ.5/SAFIR/RUBIN 5/SL-82005-043G   
> 28941 CUTE 1.72006-005C   
> 29252 GENESIS 1   2006-029A   
> 29479 HINODE (SOLAR B)2006-041A   
> 29655 GENESAT 2006-058C   
> 29712 PEHUENSAT 1 2007-001D   
> 31117 EGYPTSAT 1  2007-012A   
> 31122 CSTB 1  2007-012F   
> 31126 MAST2007-012K   
> 31128 LIBERTAD 1  2007-012M   
> 31129 CP3 2007-012N   
> 31130 CAPE 1  2007-012P   
> 31132 CP4 2007-012Q   
> 31135 AGILE   2007-013A   
> 31140 NFIRE   2007-014A   
> 31789 GENESIS 2   2007-028A   
> 32781 GIOVE-B 2008-020A   
> 32783 CARTOSAT 2A 2008-021A   
> 32784 CANX-6  2008-021B   
> 32785 CUTE 1.7 & AOD 22008-021C   
> 32786 IMS-1   2008-021D   
> 32787 COMPASS 1   2008-021E   
> 32788 AAUSAT CUBESAT 22008-021F   
> 32789 DELFI C3 

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Rocky Jones]

The hamsat bands are slowly being converted into "cheap" telemetry bands...

Robert WB5MZO

> To: ni...@ngunn.net
> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:31:40 -0800
> From: k...@juno.com
> CC: amsat-bb@amsat.org
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites
> 
> I wonder how many of those 50  are able to handle 
> ham radio 2-way contacts ? 
> 
> K6YK
>  
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:09:43 + Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF
>  writes:
> > Here's a list of all (known to me) satellites still in orbit with 
> > some designed in (but not necessarily operational) 
> > amateur band functionality.
> > 
> > For those that think nothing has been happening recently, there have 
> > been 26 (so far) satellites launched this year, 13 
> > in 2008 and 11 in 2007. Thats 50 birds in less than the past 3 
> > years.
> > 
> > Catalog NumberCommon NameInternational 
> > DesignatorComments
> > 1293 OSCAR 3 1965-016F 
> > 6236 OSCAR 6 1972-082B 
> > 7530 OSCAR 7 1974-089B 
> > 10703 OSCAR 8 1978-026B 
> > 14129 OSCAR 10 1983-058B 
> > 14781 OSCAR 11 (UoSAT 2) 1984-021B 
> > 16909 JAS 1 (FUJI 1) 1986-061B 
> > 20437 OSCAR 14 (UoSAT 3) 1990-005B 
> > 20438 OSCAR 15 (UoSAT 4) 1990-005C 
> > 20439 OSCAR 16 (PACSAT) 1990-005D 
> > 20440 OSCAR 17 (DOVE) 1990-005E 
> > 20441 OSCAR 18 (WEBERSAT) 1990-005F 
> > 20442 OSCAR 19 (LUSAT) 1990-005G 
> > 20480 JAS 1B (FUJI 2) 1990-013C 
> > 21039 SL-12 R/B(1) 1990-116B 
> > 21087 INFORMATOR 1 1991-006A 
> > 21089 COSMOS 2123 1991-007A 
> > 21575 OSCAR 22 (UoSAT 5) 1991-050B 
> > 22825 KITSAT B 1993-061C 
> > 22826 POSAT 1 1993-061D 
> > 22828 ITAMSAT 1993-061F 
> > 22829 EYESAT A 1993-061G 
> > 23439 RADIO ROSTO 1994-085A 
> > 24278 JAS 2 1996-046B 
> > 24305 UNAMSAT 1996-052B 
> > 25396 TMSAT 1998-043C 
> > 25397 TECHSAT 1B 1998-043D 
> > 25509 SEDSAT 1 1998-061B 
> > 25520 PAN SAT 1998-064B 
> > 25544 ISS (ZARYA) 1998-067A 
> > 25636 SUNSAT 1999-008C 
> > 25693 OSCAR 36 (UoSAT 12) 1999-021A 
> > 25756 KITSAT 3 1999-029A 
> > 26063 OPAL 2000-004C 
> > 26545 SAUDISAT 1A 2000-057A 
> > 26548 TIUNGSAT 1 2000-057D 
> > 26609 AMSAT OSCAR 40 2000-072B 
> > 26931 PCSAT 2001-043C 
> > 26932 SAPPHIRE 2001-043D 
> > 27605 RUBIN 2 2002-058A 
> > 27607 SAUDISAT 1C 2002-058C 
> > 27842 DTUSAT 2003-031C 
> > 27844 CUTE-1 2003-031E 
> > 27845 QUAKESAT 2003-031F 
> > 27847 CANX-1 2003-031H 
> > 27848 CUBESAT XI-IV 2003-031J 
> > 27939 MOZHAYETS 4 2003-042A 
> > 28375 AMSAT ECHO 2004-025K 
> > 28650 HAMSAT 2005-017B 
> > 28890 BEIJING 1 (TSINGHUA) 2005-043A 
> > 28891 TOPSAT 2005-043B 
> > 28892 UWE-1 2005-043C 
> > 28893 SINAH 1 2005-043D 
> > 28894 SSETI-EXPRESS 2005-043E 
> > 28895 CUBESAT XI-V 2005-043F 
> > 28897 SSETI-EXPRESS DEB 2005-043H 
> > 28898 MOZ.5/SAFIR/RUBIN 5/SL-8 2005-043G 
> > 28941 CUTE 1.7 2006-005C 
> > 29252 GENESIS 1 2006-029A 
> > 29479 HINODE (SOLAR B) 2006-041A 
> > 29655 GENESAT 2006-058C 
> > 29712 PEHUENSAT 1 2007-001D 
> > 31117 EGYPTSAT 1 2007-012A 
> > 31122 CSTB 1 2007-012F 

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[STeve Andre']

   I don't see it that way.

   Every project is a set of people who have participated in what is
at first something technical, then magical.  I have never talked
with someone who has worked on something going into space
that hasn't set back at some point and marveled at it.  How many
folks have we all done demos for, and heard "Wow..!" ?

   With the technology to get things into some kind of orbit 
coming down, its only reasonable to expect that more and more
organizations will make the attempt.  Some will get amateur
licenses just so they can to telemetry, but there is an interesting
effect there, which is that some of them stick around and 
become hams, as oposed to just being licensed.

I've met two people who were in some project and got licences,
and once they attended a Dayton Hamvention, they were hooked.
I've seen one of them several times now, at Dayton.

So sure, we offer cheap telemetry but the side effects are priceless.

--STeve Andre'
wb8wsf  en82


On Friday 25 September 2009 15:56:37 Rocky Jones wrote:
> The hamsat bands are slowly being converted into "cheap" telemetry bands...
>
> Robert WB5MZO
>
> > To: ni...@ngunn.net
> > Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:31:40 -0800
> > From: k...@juno.com
> > CC: amsat-bb@amsat.org
> > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites
> >
> > I wonder how many of those 50  are able to handle
> > ham radio 2-way contacts ?
> >
> > K6YK
> >
> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:09:43 + Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF
> >
> >  writes:
> > > Here's a list of all (known to me) satellites still in orbit with
> > > some designed in (but not necessarily operational)
> > > amateur band functionality.
> > >
> > > For those that think nothing has been happening recently, there have
> > > been 26 (so far) satellites launched this year, 13
> > > in 2008 and 11 in 2007. Thats 50 birds in less than the past 3
> > > years.
> > >
> > > Catalog NumberCommon NameInternational
> > > DesignatorComments
> > > 1293 OSCAR 3 1965-016F
> > > 6236 OSCAR 6 1972-082B
> > > 7530 OSCAR 7 1974-089B
> > > 10703 OSCAR 8 1978-026B
> > > 14129 OSCAR 10 1983-058B
> > > 14781 OSCAR 11 (UoSAT 2) 1984-021B
> > > 16909 JAS 1 (FUJI 1) 1986-061B
> > > 20437 OSCAR 14 (UoSAT 3) 1990-005B
> > > 20438 OSCAR 15 (UoSAT 4) 1990-005C
> > > 20439 OSCAR 16 (PACSAT) 1990-005D
> > > 20440 OSCAR 17 (DOVE) 1990-005E
> > > 20441 OSCAR 18 (WEBERSAT) 1990-005F
> > > 20442 OSCAR 19 (LUSAT) 1990-005G
> > > 20480 JAS 1B (FUJI 2) 1990-013C
> > > 21039 SL-12 R/B(1) 1990-116B
> > > 21087 INFORMATOR 1 1991-006A
> > > 21089 COSMOS 2123 1991-007A
> > > 21575 OSCAR 22 (UoSAT 5) 1991-050B
> > > 22825 KITSAT B 1993-061C
> > > 22826 POSAT 1 1993-061D
> > > 22828 ITAMSAT 1993-061F
> > > 22829 EYESAT A 1993-061G
> > > 23439 RADIO ROSTO 1994-085A
> > > 24278 JAS 2 1996-046B
> > > 24305 UNAMSAT 1996-052B
> > > 25396 TMSAT 1998-043C
> > > 25397 TECHSAT 1B 1998-043D
> > > 25509 SEDSAT 1 1998-061B
> > > 25520 PAN SAT 1998-064B
> > > 25544 ISS (ZARYA) 1998-067A
> > > 25636 SUNSAT 1999-008C
> > > 25693 OSCAR 36 (UoSAT 12) 1999-021A
> > > 25756 KITSAT 3 1999-029A
> > > 26063 OPAL 2000-004C
> > > 26545 SAUDISAT 1A 2000-057A
> > > 26548 TIUNGSAT 1 2000-057D
> > > 26609 AMSAT OSCAR 40 2000-072B
> > > 26931 PCSAT 2001-043C
> > > 26932 SAPPHIRE 2001-043D
> > > 27605 RUBIN 2 2002-058A
> > > 27607 SAUDISAT 1C 2002-058C
> > > 27842 DTUSAT 2003-031C
> > > 27844 CUTE-1 2003-031E
> > > 27845 QUAKESAT 2003-031F
> > > 27847 CANX-1 2003-031H
> > > 27848 CUBESAT XI-IV 2003-031J
> > > 27939 MOZHAYETS 4 2003-042A
> > > 28375 AMSAT EC

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[David - KG4ZLB]

I hate to say it but you may be right - the sky is now full of 
"beep-beep" sats!

David KG4ZLB



Rocky Jones wrote:
> The hamsat bands are slowly being converted into "cheap" telemetry bands...
>
> Robert WB5MZO
>
>   
> 
> _
> Bing™  brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place.   Try it 
> now.
> http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1
> ___
> Sent via amsat...@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...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Jim Jerzycke]

Do any of these have potential for Amateur use after their "primary mission" is 
completed? If they can be repurposed like AO-27, then I don't have any 
complaints. If, OTOH, all they're good for is sending telemetry for somebody's 
experiment, then I feel this is an inappropriate use of Amateur frequencies.
73, Jim  KQ6EA

--- On Fri, 9/25/09, David - KG4ZLB  wrote:

> From: David - KG4ZLB 
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites
> To: amsat-bb@amsat.org
> Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 1:10 PM
> I hate to say it but you may be right
> - the sky is now full of 
> "beep-beep" sats!
> 
> David KG4ZLB
> 
> 
> 
> Rocky Jones wrote:
> > The hamsat bands are slowly being converted into
> "cheap" telemetry bands...
> >
> > Robert WB5MZO
> >
> >   
> >     
> 
>       
>   
> >
> _
> > Bing™  brings you maps, menus, and reviews
> organized in one place.   Try it now.
> > http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1
> > ___
> > Sent via amsat...@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...@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...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Trevor .]

--- On Fri, 25/9/09, John W Lee  wrote:
> I wonder how many of those 50 are able to handle 
> ham radio 2-way contacts ? 

Granted most of them haven't been able to handle "UR 599 OM QSL via buro" style 
contacts, the bulk have "just" been for self-training and technical 
investigations. 

But there again these "self-training and technical investigation" Amateur Radio 
satellites have been launched into very low orbits (< 1000 km) which means 
short pass time and short range - next to useless for two-way Amateur DX 
contacts. 

It is worth noting that Amateurs may well wax lyrical about Oscar 7 or 6 but 
they never mention Oscar 8, which had both Mode A and J. Why is this ? Simply 
the orbital height, nothing else. 

The fundamental problem we need to address is how to get a satellite from a 
readily available orbit below 1000 km to one whose apogee is 1400 km or 
greater. 

73 Trevor M5AKA



  


___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[James Duffey]

Are all the satellites containing the RS transponders included? It  
seems like some or all are missing. - Duffey
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM





___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Alan P. Biddle]

At a SmallSat conference I attended on behalf of AMSAT this summer, I was
amused at the casual assumption by a researcher that 50, Five Oh, cubesats
could be launched as part of an upper atmosphere project using ham
frequencies for the downlinks.  (They would have a lifetime of only 3-4
months.)  Jan King, W3GEY/VK4GEY, who does coordination of satellite
frequencies, gently but firmly brought them down to earth a bit.  

On the one hand, we get new hams with interests in space communications from
these projects, but on the other we need to prevent the de facto
appropriation of needed frequencies.  A fine line to walk.

Alan
WA4SCA



___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Bill Ress]

Hi Trevor,

We somehow must start to get serious about the orbital modification 
concepts proposed by David, G0MRF (see his paper from the 2009 AMSAT-UK 
Colloquium), that will get a LEO satellite into a MEO orbit.

I believe the concept (ion propulsion or similar) can, as David points 
out, over time in orbit, modify a LEO to something more useful. Many 
papers given recently by "tiny" propulsion system researchers at 
SmallSat and CubeSat conferences make it clear to me that some form of 
"samll" propulsion is in our future if we want to move out of LEO.

Come to the AMSAT Symposium and listen to Dan Schultz, N8FGV, give his 
presentation - Hall Effect Thrusters for Amsat Satellite Missions, a Report
from the International Electric Propulsion Conference

While it's likely a real stretch for a 1U CubeSat, in a 3U CubeSat with 
up to 2U Cubes worth dedicated to ion propulsion, we might have 
something practical. While many I talk with say it isn't practical, I 
have no doubt it will happen in the not too distant future. I wonder who 
will take the lead and be first?

It could sure help solve the problem of not having affordable launch 
opportunities to MEO any more.

Regards...Bill - N6GHz

Trevor . wrote:
> --- On Fri, 25/9/09, John W Lee  wrote:
>> I wonder how many of those 50 are able to handle 
>> ham radio 2-way contacts ? 
> 
> Granted most of them haven't been able to handle "UR 599 OM QSL via buro" 
> style contacts, the bulk have "just" been for self-training and technical 
> investigations. 
> 
> But there again these "self-training and technical investigation" Amateur 
> Radio satellites have been launched into very low orbits (< 1000 km) which 
> means short pass time and short range - next to useless for two-way Amateur 
> DX contacts. 
> 
> It is worth noting that Amateurs may well wax lyrical about Oscar 7 or 6 but 
> they never mention Oscar 8, which had both Mode A and J. Why is this ? Simply 
> the orbital height, nothing else. 
> 
> The fundamental problem we need to address is how to get a satellite from a 
> readily available orbit below 1000 km to one whose apogee is 1400 km or 
> greater. 
> 
> 73 Trevor M5AKA
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> ___
> Sent via amsat...@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...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Rocky Jones]

> From: and...@msu.edu
> To: amsat-bb@amsat.org
> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:05:09 -0400
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites
> 
>I don't see it that way.
> 
>Every project is a set of people who have participated in what is
> at first something technical, then magical.  I have never talked
> with someone who has worked on something going into space
> that hasn't set back at some point and marveled at it.  How many
> folks have we all done demos for, and heard "Wow..!" ?
> 
> 
> --STeve Andre'
> wb8wsf  en82
> 

Steve...hope you are correct.

Very few almost none of the astronauts that get their US license to go up on 
the space station do anything with amateur radio afterwards...  I am sure "the 
magic" of space is there...and who knows it might translate into a resurgence 
of amateur radio among "the youth"...but I'll bet dollars that it wont.

 few of these sats are doing anything even remotely related to amateur radio or 
even communications in general.  the payload is "something else" and the 
amateur freqs are just used for telemetry.  and since the number of payloads 
that actually do "communications" is dwindling at somepoint my guess is that 
telemetry outright, without even the pretext of amateur radio is going to be 
seriously considered as a allocation for the band.


the good news is that most of them "crib death" and thats that.  Of course I 
still listen to Prospero everytime it goes beeping overhead...actually if one 
has the telem mask...it is still actually doing coherent stuff...and it is 
beeping on a band where telemetry is authorized...

Robert WB5MZO
  
_
Bing™  brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place.   Try it now.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1
___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Trevor .]

--- On Fri, 25/9/09, Alan P. Biddle  wrote:
> At a SmallSat conference I attended on behalf of AMSAT this summer, 
> I was amused at the casual assumption by a researcher that 50, 
> Five Oh, cubesats could be launched as part of an upper atmosphere 
> project using ham frequencies for the downlinks. 

Was this the Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics (VKI) proposal ? 

Much as I hate to point it out the Primary User of the frequencies proposed are 
the Military. 

Regretably neither the Amateur or Amateur Satellite services has any Global 
Primary allocations between 146 MHz and 24 GHz. A point which as I recall was 
raised about a decade ago on this list. 

Perhaps the problem is that Amateur Satellite users do not lobby their National 
Societies to get them to push for some Global Primary Amateur and Amateur 
Satellite allocations in the UHF and Microwave bands. 

73 Trevor M5AKA



  


___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Trevor .]

--- On Fri, 25/9/09, Bill Ress  wrote:
> While it's likely a real stretch for a 1U CubeSat, in a 3U
> CubeSat with up to 2U Cubes worth dedicated to ion
> propulsion, we might have something practical. While many I
> talk with say it isn't practical, I have no doubt it will
> happen in the not too distant future. I wonder who will take
> the lead and be first?

Hi Bill, 

You're right, the potential is there for a 3U CubeSat that can achieve an 
apogee > 1400 km.  

We'd need 1U of that to house the linear transponder but as you say the rest 
could be used for the propulsion system. 

As yet, as far as I'm aware, no-one has actually demonstrated a working 
propulsion mechanism that can fit in 2U but I'm convinced this is possible. 

The launch costs for a 3U CubeSat into 700 km LEO are well within the reach of 
the Amateur community, our challenge is to develop a means of raising the 
apogee.

73 Trevor M5AKA



  


___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Alan P. Biddle]

Trevor,

Bill is right on about propulsion systems.  There are several types of
thrusters being worked on.  Most are being pitched to extend the life of LEO
cubesats, but in principle they could get us to MEO.  As always, cost is a
huge factor.  When the Boeing rep says after a vendor presentation, "You
what HOW MUCH for that?!" you know there are cost issues.  ;)

Alan
WA4SCA



___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[G0MRF]

 
In a message dated 25/09/2009 22:10:17 GMT Standard Time, m5...@yahoo.co.uk 
 writes:

Hi Bill,  

You're right, the potential is there for a 3U CubeSat that can achieve  an 
apogee > 1400 km.  

We'd need 1U of that to house the linear  transponder but as you say the 
rest could be used for the propulsion system.  

As yet, as far as I'm aware, no-one has actually demonstrated a  working 
propulsion mechanism that can fit in 2U but I'm convinced this is  possible. 

The launch costs for a 3U CubeSat into 700 km LEO are well  within the 
reach of the Amateur community, our challenge is to develop a means  of raising 
the apogee.

73 Trevor M5AKA





Hi Trevor.
 
There is a propulsion system being developed for cubesats using a hydrazine 
 mono propellant that uses catalytic decomposition to produce a large 
volume of  hot gaseous products.
 
If initial claimed results can be repeated in production, then that unit  
can be propelled from typical LEO up to 1400km circular or 2000km  eliptical. 
 It's based on a 3U structure. It's not MEO, but its a lot more  fun than 
500km
 
David  G0MRF
___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[James Craig]

Good point. Not everybody is interested in monitoring the one way  
downlinks on the majority of these more recent birds. Why is it that  
there is no problem getting large numbers of these types of satellites  
into orbit, yet good old fashioned two way linear and FM transponder  
birds are relatively far and few between?

Regards and 73,
James - ZL4JM/VK5JC

Sent from my iPod

On 26/09/2009, at 5:01, John W Lee  wrote:

> I wonder how many of those 50  are able to handle
> ham radio 2-way contacts ?
>
> K6YK
>
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:09:43 + Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF
>  writes:
>> Here's a list of all (known to me) satellites still in orbit with
>> some designed in (but not necessarily operational)
>> amateur band functionality.
>>
>> For those that think nothing has been happening recently, there have
>> been 26 (so far) satellites launched this year, 13
>> in 2008 and 11 in 2007. Thats 50 birds in less than the past 3
>> years.
>>
>> Catalog NumberCommon NameInternational
>> DesignatorComments
>> 1293 OSCAR 3 1965-016F
>> 6236 OSCAR 6 1972-082B
>> 7530 OSCAR 7 1974-089B
>> 10703 OSCAR 8 1978-026B
>> 14129 OSCAR 10 1983-058B
>> 14781 OSCAR 11 (UoSAT 2) 1984-021B
>> 16909 JAS 1 (FUJI 1) 1986-061B
>> 20437 OSCAR 14 (UoSAT 3) 1990-005B
>> 20438 OSCAR 15 (UoSAT 4) 1990-005C
>> 20439 OSCAR 16 (PACSAT) 1990-005D
>> 20440 OSCAR 17 (DOVE) 1990-005E
>> 20441 OSCAR 18 (WEBERSAT) 1990-005F
>> 20442 OSCAR 19 (LUSAT) 1990-005G
>> 20480 JAS 1B (FUJI 2) 1990-013C
>> 21039 SL-12 R/B(1) 1990-116B
>> 21087 INFORMATOR 1 1991-006A
>> 21089 COSMOS 2123 1991-007A
>> 21575 OSCAR 22 (UoSAT 5) 1991-050B
>> 22825 KITSAT B 1993-061C
>> 22826 POSAT 1 1993-061D
>> 22828 ITAMSAT 1993-061F
>> 22829 EYESAT A 1993-061G
>> 23439 RADIO ROSTO 1994-085A
>> 24278 JAS 2 1996-046B
>> 24305 UNAMSAT 1996-052B
>> 25396 TMSAT 1998-043C
>> 25397 TECHSAT 1B 1998-043D
>> 25509 SEDSAT 1 1998-061B
>> 25520 PAN SAT 1998-064B
>> 25544 ISS (ZARYA) 1998-067A
>> 25636 SUNSAT 1999-008C
>> 25693 OSCAR 36 (UoSAT 12) 1999-021A
>> 25756 KITSAT 3 1999-029A
>> 26063 OPAL 2000-004C
>> 26545 SAUDISAT 1A 2000-057A
>> 26548 TIUNGSAT 1 2000-057D
>> 26609 AMSAT OSCAR 40 2000-072B
>> 26931 PCSAT 2001-043C
>> 26932 SAPPHIRE 2001-043D
>> 27605 RUBIN 2 2002-058A
>> 27607 SAUDISAT 1C 2002-058C
>> 27842 DTUSAT 2003-031C
>> 27844 CUTE-1 2003-031E
>> 27845 QUAKESAT 2003-031F
>> 27847 CANX-1 2003-031H
>> 27848 CUBESAT XI-IV 2003-031J
>> 27939 MOZHAYETS 4 2003-042A
>> 28375 AMSAT ECHO 2004-025K
>> 28650 HAMSAT 2005-017B
>> 28890 BEIJING 1 (TSINGHUA) 2005-043A
>> 28891 TOPSAT 2005-043B
>> 28892 UWE-1 2005-043C
>> 28893 SINAH 1 2005-043D
>> 28894 SSETI-EXPRESS 2005-043E
>> 28895 CUBESAT XI-V 2005-043F
>> 28897 SSETI-EXPRESS DEB 2005-043H
>> 28898 MOZ.5/SAFIR/RUBIN 5/SL-8 2005-043G
>> 28941 CUTE 1.7 2006-005C
>> 29252 GENESIS 1 2006-029A
>> 29479 HINODE (SOLAR B) 2006-041A
>> 29655 GENESAT 2006-058C
>> 29712 PEHUENSAT 1 2007-001D
>> 31117 EGYPTSAT 1 2007-012A
>> 31122 CSTB 1 2007-012F
>> 31126 MAST 2007-012K
>> 31128 LIBERTAD 1 2007-012M
>> 31129 CP3 2007-012N
>> 31130 CAPE 1 2007-012P
>> 31132 CP4 2007-012Q
>> 31135 AGILE 2007-013A
>> 31140 NFIRE 2007-014A
>> 31789 GENESIS 2 2007-028A
>> 32781 GIOVE-B 2008-020A
>> 32783 CARTOSAT 2A 2008-021A
>> 32784 CANX-6 2008-021B
>> 32785 CUTE 1.7 & AOD 2 2008-021C
>> 32786 IMS-1 2008-021D
>> 32787 COMPASS 1 2008-021E
>> 32788 AAUSAT CUBESAT 2 2008-021F
>> 32789 DELFI C3 2008-021G
>> 32790 CANX-2 2008-021H
>> 32791 SEEDS 2008-021J
>> 32792 RUBIN 8/PSLV 2008-021K
>> 32794 AMOS 3 2008-022A
>> 32953 YUBILEINY 2008-025A
>> 33492 GOSAT (IBUKI) 2009-002A
>> 33493 PRI

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Tony Langdon]

At 09:34 AM 9/26/2009, James Craig wrote:
>Good point. Not everybody is interested in monitoring the one way
>downlinks on the majority of these more recent birds. Why is it that
>there is no problem getting large numbers of these types of satellites
>into orbit, yet good old fashioned two way linear and FM transponder
>birds are relatively far and few between?

I for one was never a SWL, so I tend not to follow the one way 
satellites, unless there's a compelling reason (e.g. for test 
signals, or telemetry decoding - had fun decoding telemetry on AO-40 
when it was first launched).

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Mark VandeWettering]

> Good point. Not everybody is interested in monitoring the one way
> downlinks on the majority of these more recent birds. Why is it that
> there is no problem getting large numbers of these types of satellites
> into orbit, yet good old fashioned two way linear and FM transponder
> birds are relatively far and few between?

> Regards and 73,
>James - ZL4JM/VK5JC

Well, after the launch of AO-51 here in the U.S., the AMSAT membership
seemed to think that they should concentrate their efforts on a HEO launch.
The problem is that there really aren't any viable launch options for HEO
satellites.   We aren't alone either:  P3E is considerably further along than
any of the AMSAT-NA projects, and yet has no hint of how it might get
boosted to orbit.

Cubesats are being launched for one simple reason: people have figured
out how to fund low mass sats to low earth orbit.   We could probably
launch a couple dozen LEO cubesats (or more) for what it would cost
to put just one payload into HEO, but nobody seems to really be interested
in doing that, since it won't give anyone the DX that they want.  I think
there have been some interesting developments in micro propulsion
technologies, but it is still challenging to get a cubesat in orbit that can
serve as a transponder within the weight and space limitations that
cubesats have.

Perhaps when commercial vehicles like the Falcon 9 begin launching,
we'll see a sufficient reduction in payload boosting costs to make
raising the money for a HEO satellite with significant mass reasonable.
We shall have to see.

Mark K6HX
___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Alan VE4YZ]

Isn't it neat that Amateur Radio allows you to have a very narrow interest
and get enjoyment out of it. From HF to multi GHz.  From terrestrial to EME.

One subset is amateur satellites.  Further subsets within amateur satellite
includes those who love to work the FM Grid Sats, others like the "beep"
Sats while others explore the old dead birds looking for a Phoenix a la
AO-7.

To complain about the use of spectrum by one group or another is nuts.  In
the last day I've read such nonsense as "use of amateur frequencies for
telemetry".  Duh?  Was it being used for something else?  Did anyone notice
that the "beep" Sats for the most part do their beeping on UHF.  Those are
not exclusive amateur frequencies.  We, as amateurs, are the SECONDARY user
of a shared frequency.

In the meantime, instead of complaining, get involved with your local
CubeSat project to make sure that a FM or linear transponder is part of the
spec.  I think Delfi is a perfect model for us to pursue.  Post science,
post amateurs assisting with near whole earth orbit data acquisition, the
satellite is turned over for amateur use.  What a wonderful model of
collaboration and win-win Delfi set for all of us.  

Which leads me to my final comment on this Friday night rant... I don't
expect to see another HEO or MEO in my life time.  I think there is a better
chance to see a constellation of LEO picosats running a mesh-like network.
A network built up gradually over time by the CubeSat community 2 or 3 cubes
at a time over many years costing no one group an arm and a leg to move
toward that goal.  No one launch failure jeopardizing the big picture.  No
one satellite failing in the constellation putting down the whole network or
our enjoyment of it use.

Step'n off the soap box... 

73, Alan VE4YZ
EN19kv
AMSAT LM 2352 
http://www.wincube.ca







___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Robert Bruninga]

> ... few of these sats are doing anything 
> even remotely related to amateur radio or 
> even communications in general. 

Get a life.  Maybe not your very narrowminded view of amateur
radio, but you outta open your mind and do a little
investigation as to the full depth and breadth of what people do
with their amateur radio hobby...

Bob

___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Rocky Jones]

Jim...very few of them have any potential for Amateur use at all...most however 
also die quickly.

Robert WB5MZO

> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:38:45 -0700
> From: kq...@pacbell.net
> To: amsat-bb@amsat.org; kg4...@gmail.com
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites
> 
> Do any of these have potential for Amateur use after their "primary mission" 
> is completed? If they can be repurposed like AO-27, then I don't have any 
> complaints. If, OTOH, all they're good for is sending telemetry for 
> somebody's experiment, then I feel this is an inappropriate use of Amateur 
> frequencies.
> 73, Jim  KQ6EA
> 
> --- On Fri, 9/25/09, David - KG4ZLB  wrote:
> 
> > From: David - KG4ZLB 
> > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites
> > To: amsat-bb@amsat.org
> > Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 1:10 PM
> > I hate to say it but you may be right
> > - the sky is now full of 
> > "beep-beep" sats!
> > 
> > David KG4ZLB
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Rocky Jones wrote:
> > > The hamsat bands are slowly being converted into
> > "cheap" telemetry bands...
> > >
> > > Robert WB5MZO
> > >
> > >   
> > > 
> > 
> >   
> >   
> > >
> > _
> > > Bing™  brings you maps, menus, and reviews
> > organized in one place.   Try it now.
> > > http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1
> > > ___
> > > Sent via amsat...@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...@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...@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
  
_
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009
___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Rocky Jones]

> Perhaps when commercial vehicles like the Falcon 9 begin launching,
> we'll see a sufficient reduction in payload boosting costs to make
> raising the money for a HEO satellite with significant mass reasonable.
> We shall have to see.
> 
> Mark K6HX
> ___
> Sent via amsat...@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

Mark if there is a future for amateur HEO's the birds are going to be more 
Arsene and Oscar IV size.

Robert WB5MZO
  
_
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Bruce Robertson]

I will attempt a reply to both of these responses.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Tony Langdon  wrote:
> At 09:34 AM 9/26/2009, James Craig wrote:
>>Good point. Not everybody is interested in monitoring the one way
>>downlinks on the majority of these more recent birds. Why is it that
>>there is no problem getting large numbers of these types of satellites
>>into orbit, yet good old fashioned two way linear and FM transponder
>>birds are relatively far and few between?

The reason cubesats are being built is because they are seen as an
excellent platform for educating space science students at the
undergraduate level. The amount of money being spent per launch is
pretty doable for many institutions or local granting agencies. These
agencies and universities are likely simply not interested in
providing you or me with a platform for two-way terrestrial
communication if it is going to slow down their project or lower its
probability of success.

The cubesat design is quite constrained moreover, typically 10cm^3 and
under one kg, even the milk-carton sized 3U format is pretty small for
the power needs of a linear or FM transponder of the sort we are
typically using. We owe a debt of gratitude to Delfi, which showed
that a linear can be put up as a secondary mission, and to William for
his 10cm^2 transponder implementation.

Those are very recent developments, and I'd agree that we should jump
on them as golden opportunities, noting however, that the result will
still be very low altitude orbits and therefore small footprints.
Similarly, SDX technology might be able to miniaturize the transponder
further and reduce its power needs (while making one circuit a
do-everything transponder!), so we're lucky that we're testing that
technology in the near future.

Please note that there is no contention for resources here: the
opportunities the universities made use of are not available to us. If
we want this phenomenon to work to the advantage of those of us who
enjoy two-way voice communications, we need to either launch a cubesat
ourselves or offer the university projects a reason that adding this
capability will *improve* the time-to-launch or probability of
success. This might be in the form of a free, tested, reliable
communications board that happens to have two-way voice capability
integrated into it. It also could be in the form of increased amateur
enthusiasm for the transponder-bearing cubesat and the resulting
increase in telemetry collection, a bargain which we proved to be good
for in Delfi C3.

> I for one was never a SWL, so I tend not to follow the one way
> satellites, unless there's a compelling reason (e.g. for test
> signals, or telemetry decoding - had fun decoding telemetry on AO-40
> when it was first launched).

Nor was I, yet I very much enjoy listening to telemetry from cubesats,
along with other activities in this corner of the hobby. I can offer
you this reason: when I listen to telemetry, I'm listening to
something which is in space and in orbit around the earth, one of the
most exotic locales from which you could receive a message. If I talk
to you on AO-51, I'm talking to you on earth by means of a space-borne
vehicle. It turns out that what's fun about that for me is not
necessarily your voice, but the vehicle. Telemetry tells me about
those vehicles: how fast they are moving, how they are tumbling and
the contents of the telemetry stream: how much power they're
collecting and using. Moreover, with some of the cubesats, the
decoding of this is very easy if one knows CW.

Two more points in my brief  "apologia pro cubesatibus"

1. So-called 'telemetry only' birds are not necessarily that. We had
the opportunity to control COMPASS during its crisis last year. The
low cost of the mission meant that any one of us was solicited to
enter the appropriate codes. I'll never be a control station for a
major bird, but I thrilled to do this for COMPASS.

2. Given that you admit above that telemetry collection is necessary
for the maintenance of communication satellites, shouldn't you be glad
that this steady stream of cubesats has allowed some enthusiasts to
continue to hone their skills in this field?

Finally, a truism that probably bears repeating, though not addressing
the two comments quoted above: if we call cubesats 'not amateur
radio', then we should tar OSCAR 1 with that same brush.

73, Bruce
VE9QRP
___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Bruce Robertson]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:34 PM,   wrote:
>
> In a message dated 25/09/2009 22:10:17 GMT Standard Time, m5...@yahoo.co.uk
>  writes:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> You're right, the potential is there for a 3U CubeSat that can achieve  an
> apogee > 1400 km.
>
> We'd need 1U of that to house the linear  transponder but as you say the
> rest could be used for the propulsion system.
>
> As yet, as far as I'm aware, no-one has actually demonstrated a  working
> propulsion mechanism that can fit in 2U but I'm convinced this is  possible.
>
> The launch costs for a 3U CubeSat into 700 km LEO are well  within the
> reach of the Amateur community, our challenge is to develop a means  of 
> raising
> the apogee.
>
> 73 Trevor M5AKA
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Trevor.
>
> There is a propulsion system being developed for cubesats using a hydrazine
>  mono propellant that uses catalytic decomposition to produce a large
> volume of  hot gaseous products.
>
> If initial claimed results can be repeated in production, then that unit
> can be propelled from typical LEO up to 1400km circular or 2000km  eliptical.
>  It's based on a 3U structure. It's not MEO, but its a lot more  fun than
> 500km
>
> David  G0MRF

Oh, I love this idea, and I put my vote in for the elliptical. (Not
that I have a vote :-) The occasional massive footprint would be
really neat to play with, and justify all our overkill antenna arrays.
I'm guessing we'd need the 3U format for linear transponder anyway,
since the requisite solar panel area is not available in 1U.

73, Bruce
VE9QRP

___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Rocky Jones]

> 
> Finally, a truism that probably bears repeating, though not addressing
> the two comments quoted above: if we call cubesats 'not amateur
> radio', then we should tar OSCAR 1 with that same brush.
> 
> 73, Bruce
> VE9QRP
> ___
> Sent via amsat...@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

Bruce...that is really not fair.

Oscar 1 (and 2) were "first time" for a lot of things and had at their heart 
the goal of building amateur radio communications platforms...that is why Oscar 
"X" (I think that is what they call it...a repeat of Oscar 1 and 2) was shelved 
in favor of Oscar III a communications platform.

Both Oscar 1 and II lasted until their batteries ran out...indeed I think 
Number 1 lasted until it decayed..Oscar V tested communications technology from 
spacecraft stabilization to command systems etc. and it lasted until its 
batteries ran out

.that is far longer sat life then most of the cubesats have.  which mostly have 
nothing to do with amateur radio

Robert WB5MZO
  
_
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Bruce Robertson]

On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Rocky Jones  wrote:
>
>>
>> Finally, a truism that probably bears repeating, though not addressing
>> the two comments quoted above: if we call cubesats 'not amateur
>> radio', then we should tar OSCAR 1 with that same brush.
>>
>> 73, Bruce
>> VE9QRP
>> ___
>> Sent via amsat...@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
>
> Bruce...that is really not fair.

I'm sorry if I'm not being fair. I rather think, though, that there is
an important difference of opinion here on what constitutes amateur
activity. I'd like to explore it further with your permission.

> Oscar 1 (and 2) were "first time" for a lot of things and had at their heart
> the goal of building amateur radio communications platforms...that is why
> Oscar "X" (I think that is what they call it...a repeat of Oscar 1 and 2)
> was shelved in favor of Oscar III a communications platform.

If you are advocating a litmus test for amateur activity, especially
in the satellite field, that is based on novelty, then I cannot see
how you are not equally opposed to those aspects of P3E that are
self-consciously emulating previous satellites (everything other than
SDX and CAN-DO?)

In fact, in common practice innovation is too high a bar to set for
amateur activity: we don't expect each ham to invent a new modulation
scheme before getting on a local repeater for the first time; and I
know that when and if a HEO satellite is in orbit again, you will not
deprecate my enjoyment of following in the footsteps of many before me
who have undertaken linear transponder communications on that
platform.

I will meet you half way and say that innovation is a hallmark of
amateur satellite operations, though not a requirement. This is why I
am very excited by upcoming tests of SDX. It is also, incidentally,
why I applaud the achievements of the cubesat groups, whose very
form-factor is innovative, and who undertake innovative applications,
such as spacecraft stabilization for potential experiments in
formation flying, high-quality image capture, new communication modes,
physics experiments, etc., a list that reads much like the one you
apply to Oscar V below:

> Both Oscar 1 and II lasted until their batteries ran out...indeed I think
> Number 1 lasted until it decayed..Oscar V tested communications technology
> from spacecraft stabilization to command systems etc. and it lasted until
> its batteries ran out

I can't tell here: are you suggesting that battery-operated satellites
are more in the amateur spirit?  Doesn't this contravene your
innovation criterion? Were not batteries in Oscar 1-5 faute de mieux?
You seem to be implying that the Oscar 1 designers eschewed the solar
panels available to them and wisely chose the limited lifetime option.
My understanding of the history of technology is somewhat hazy, but as
it is, it doesn't fit this picture.

> .that is far longer sat life then most of the cubesats have.  which mostly
> have nothing to do with amateur radio

In your opinion, is short life a knock against cubesats? Maybe it's a
good idea to have shorter missions in some cases. Short life is not
always true, of course: CO-57, e.g., has been in operation for over
six years.

73, Bruce
VE9QRP

___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[William Leijenaar]

Hello AMSATs,
 
I agree that APRS can have a higher power transmittter, because of its small 
amount of time to get the data broadcasted. However the workability with the HT 
and whipe antenna is only an advantage for the downlink. For the uplink there 
will be no advantage.
 
Personally I believe that making a satellite easier accessable will also 
decrease its functional efficiency. This is especially the case for satellites 
with limited user access, like single channel FM satellites. This also includes 
APRS. The same issue is valide for a geostationary satellite, with the addition 
that a geostationary satellite would be overloaded in short time by more and 
more stronger stations as fixed antennas can be used. Only the uplink power 
level would be the parameter of "competition". Resulting in a privat chat 
satellite for only few (high power) users.
 
Satellites for emergency communication sounds very interresting, and personally 
I believe it can give a great advantage when doing it well. The question is 
only what will work well in an emergency situation. It will depend on the needs 
and the availability of equipment in the effected area. I believe that digital 
communication will be of limited use as you need also a computer, modem, 
keyboard, screen, software etc besides your radio. Only one thing missing and 
you will not be "heared". I don't say it is impossible, but to make the 
system work the ground stations need to be made more easier somehow. Maybe HT 
APRS in combination with voice to text conversion (and opposite) would be an 
idea ?
 
Besides the technical difficulty there is also the (human) organising factor. I 
heared some ideas about an easy to access geostationary satellite with high 
power downlink. That would be great, but without any communication control it 
would be like the FM LEOs where everyone talks at the same time and nobody is 
able to get there message through.
It might be solved with a central control centre on a safe place (maybe by 
the Amateur Radio Emergency Service ?) that has control over the satellite 
radio and uses it as a remote radio "ear" in space. In this way it is also 
possible to use one frequency simplex system.
 
Just some ideas,
 
73 de PE1RAH,
William Leijenaar
---


  
___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Andrew Rich]

I am playing with RF modules that take ms to send not seconds

19k2

LPRS


--
Andrew Rich
Airways Technical Officer Grade 4
Surveillance - RADAR ADS-B
Amateur Radio Callsign VK4TEC
email: vk4...@tech-software.net
web: www.tech-software.net
- Original Message - 
From: "William Leijenaar" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 8:04 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites


Hello AMSATs,

I agree that APRS can have a higher power transmittter, because of its small 
amount of time to get the data broadcasted. However the workability with the 
HT and whipe antenna is only an advantage for the downlink. For the uplink 
there will be no advantage.

Personally I believe that making a satellite easier accessable will also 
decrease its functional efficiency. This is especially the case for 
satellites with limited user access, like single channel FM satellites. This 
also includes APRS. The same issue is valide for a geostationary satellite, 
with the addition that a geostationary satellite would be overloaded in 
short time by more and more stronger stations as fixed antennas can be used. 
Only the uplink power level would be the parameter of "competition". 
Resulting in a privat chat satellite for only few (high power) users.

Satellites for emergency communication sounds very interresting, and 
personally I believe it can give a great advantage when doing it well. The 
question is only what will work well in an emergency situation. It will 
depend on the needs and the availability of equipment in the effected area. 
I believe that digital communication will be of limited use as you need also 
a computer, modem, keyboard, screen, software etc besides your radio. Only 
one thing missing and you will not be "heared". I don't say it is 
impossible, but to make the system work the ground stations need to be made 
more easier somehow. Maybe HT APRS in combination with voice to text 
conversion (and opposite) would be an idea ?

Besides the technical difficulty there is also the (human) organising 
factor. I heared some ideas about an easy to access geostationary satellite 
with high power downlink. That would be great, but without any communication 
control it would be like the FM LEOs where everyone talks at the same time 
and nobody is able to get there message through.
It might be solved with a central control centre on a safe place (maybe by 
the Amateur Radio Emergency Service ?) that has control over the satellite 
radio and uses it as a remote radio "ear" in space. In this way it is also 
possible to use one frequency simplex system.

Just some ideas,

73 de PE1RAH,
William Leijenaar
---



___
Sent via amsat...@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






No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.113/2399 - Release Date: 09/27/09 
17:52:00

___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Bruce Robertson]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:04 AM, William Leijenaar  wrote:
> Hello AMSATs,
>
> I agree that APRS can have a higher power transmittter, because of its small 
> amount of time to get the data broadcasted. However the workability with the 
> HT and whipe antenna is only an advantage for the downlink. For the uplink 
> there will be no advantage.

> Personally I believe that making a satellite easier accessable will also 
> decrease its functional efficiency. This is especially the case for 
> satellites with limited user access, like single channel FM satellites. This 
> also includes APRS. The same issue is valide for a geostationary satellite, 
> with the addition that a geostationary satellite would be overloaded in short 
> time by more and more stronger stations as fixed antennas can be used. Only 
> the uplink power level would be the parameter of "competition". Resulting in 
> a privat chat satellite for only few (high power) users.

> Satellites for emergency communication sounds very interresting, and 
> personally I believe it can give a great advantage when doing it well. The 
> question is only what will work well in an emergency situation. It will 
> depend on the needs and the availability of equipment in the effected 
> area. I believe that digital communication will be of limited use as you need 
> also a computer, modem, keyboard, screen, software etc besides your radio. 
> Only one thing missing and you will not be "heared". I don't say it is 
> impossible, but to make the system work the ground stations need to be made 
> more easier somehow. Maybe HT APRS in combination with voice to text 
> conversion (and opposite) would be an idea ?

In some cases, the groundstation situation might not be as complicated
as you describe. The popular TH-D7A Kenwood HT, though no longer
manufactured, has integrated APRS messaging with a TNC on board. So,
too, does Yaesu's new VX-8R. And there are mobile 2m radios with
similar capabilities. Moreover, if there were a wide satellite network
of APRS birds, we could hope that even more new HTs would include this
feature, since the cost of implementing a modem is quite low these
days.

Nevertheless, there is a real trade-off here between the power that
digital downlinks provide (and therefore the simplicity of the
receiving system) and the demands that they would make in
accommodating the digital mode of the signals. Another point in their
favour might be that unattended operation is more practical. An APRS
message packet can be set up to be sent every 2 minutes, leaving the
operator free to do other things. Similarly, the radio (or computer)
stores incoming messages.

> Besides the technical difficulty there is also the (human) organising factor. 
> I heared some ideas about an easy to access geostationary satellite with high 
> power downlink. That would be great, but without any communication control it 
> would be like the FM LEOs where everyone talks at the same time and nobody is 
> able to get there message through.

The same might well be true with a 1200 bps digital voice channel
along the lines of what we've discussed above. But I think the APRS
traffic, consisting in very brief bursts of data, would be easier to
deal with.

> It might be solved with a central control centre on a safe place (maybe by 
> the Amateur Radio Emergency Service ?) that has control over the satellite 
> radio and uses it as a remote radio "ear" in space. In this way it is also 
> possible to use one frequency simplex system.
>
> Just some ideas,
>

Me too.

73, Bruce
VE9QRP

___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites

[Kai Gunter Brandt]

Bruce Robertson wrote:

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:04 AM, William Leijenaar  wrote:

Hello AMSATs,

I agree that APRS can have a higher power transmittter, because of its small 
amount of time to get the data broadcasted. However the workability with the HT 
and whipe antenna is only an advantage for the downlink. For the uplink there 
will be no advantage.



Personally I believe that making a satellite easier accessable will also decrease its 
functional efficiency. This is especially the case for satellites with limited user 
access, like single channel FM satellites. This also includes APRS. The same issue is 
valide for a geostationary satellite, with the addition that a geostationary satellite 
would be overloaded in short time by more and more stronger stations as fixed antennas 
can be used. Only the uplink power level would be the parameter of 
"competition". Resulting in a privat chat satellite for only few (high power) 
users.



Satellites for emergency communication sounds very interresting, and personally I believe 
it can give a great advantage when doing it well. The question is only what will work 
well in an emergency situation. It will depend on the needs and the availability of 
equipment in the effected area. I believe that digital communication will be of limited 
use as you need also a computer, modem, keyboard, screen, software etc besides your 
radio. Only one thing missing and you will not be "heared". I don't say it is 
impossible, but to make the system work the ground stations need to be made more easier 
somehow. Maybe HT APRS in combination with voice to text conversion (and opposite) would 
be an idea ?


In some cases, the groundstation situation might not be as complicated
as you describe. The popular TH-D7A Kenwood HT, though no longer
manufactured, has integrated APRS messaging with a TNC on board. So,
too, does Yaesu's new VX-8R. And there are mobile 2m radios with
similar capabilities. Moreover, if there were a wide satellite network
of APRS birds, we could hope that even more new HTs would include this
feature, since the cost of implementing a modem is quite low these
days.


Not to be picky but the VX-8 do not have an inbuilt TNC but it has a 
"TNC" doing APRS and could not be used to connect to a computer.


But i think that APRS is a nice function for the sats. It's easy to use 
and you can do i.e e-mail too. It's easy to operate and requires very 
little hardware to operate.


APRS is a nice mode to allow more people use the same "bandwidth". Doing 
the sats portable with voice is not always an easy task if the majority 
is using rotators and high power.


I really would like more APRS sats and more "igates" as i'm happy with 
messaging capability and positioning.


Most new tracker like TinyTrack etc have message and display capability 
so that you don't need a special made APRS radio.


Kai Gunter
LA3QMA
___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites (Alan P. Biddle)

[Mark VandeWettering]

>
> At a SmallSat conference I attended on behalf of AMSAT this summer, I was
> amused at the casual assumption by a researcher that 50, Five Oh, cubesats
> could be launched as part of an upper atmosphere project using ham
> frequencies for the downlinks.  (They would have a lifetime of only 3-4
> months.)  Jan King, W3GEY/VK4GEY, who does coordination of satellite
> frequencies, gently but firmly brought them down to earth a bit.
>
> On the one hand, we get new hams with interests in space communications from
> these projects, but on the other we need to prevent the de facto
> appropriation of needed frequencies.  A fine line to walk.
>
> Alan
> WA4SCA

The thing that worries me the most is that the de facto appropriation of
our amateur satellite frequencies seems very likely if we continue along a
path which keeps us from filling those slots with payloads of our own.  All
this complaining about cubesats and the use of amateur frequencies for
telemetry is kind of pointless if we aren't using those frequencies and have
no prospect of using those frequencies in the foreseeable future.

It seems to me that coordinating 50 cubesats for four months could be
a tractable
problem, depending on the precise nature of the signals and their orbital
spacing.   It's not like there is a huge number of operational amateur
satellites
that they'd have to avoid.

Mark K6HX

___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites (Alan P. Biddle)

[Robert Bruninga]

>> At a SmallSat conference... this summer,
>> I was amused at the casual assumption by 
>> a researcher that 50, cubesats could be 
>> launched as part of an upper atmosphere 
>> project using ham frequencies for the 
>> downlinks.

And wouldn’t it be a hoot if everyone of them could put their
RX/TX into a bent-pipe packet mode, and then we would have
amateur radio global hand-held text messaging satellite
system...

>>  (They would have a lifetime of only 3-4 months.)

But it would be FUN for a while!

Using some of the 2-way very small micro APRS packet systems, a
2 to 5 Watt transponder will easily fit on a singl circuit card
in a small cubesat.  See  www.aprs.org/cubesat-comms.html

Bob, WB4APR



___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites (Alan P. Biddle)

[Gordon JC Pearce]

On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 22:19 -0400, Robert Bruninga wrote:
> >> At a SmallSat conference... this summer,
> >> I was amused at the casual assumption by 
> >> a researcher that 50, cubesats could be 
> >> launched as part of an upper atmosphere 
> >> project using ham frequencies for the 
> >> downlinks.
> 
> And wouldn’t it be a hoot if everyone of them could put their
> RX/TX into a bent-pipe packet mode, and then we would have
> amateur radio global hand-held text messaging satellite
> system...
> 
> >>  (They would have a lifetime of only 3-4 months.)
> 
> But it would be FUN for a while!
> 
> Using some of the 2-way very small micro APRS packet systems, a
> 2 to 5 Watt transponder will easily fit on a singl circuit card
> in a small cubesat.  See  www.aprs.org/cubesat-comms.html
> 
> Bob, WB4APR

If you could have maybe five or six cubesats with an FM transponder
orbiting in such a way that there was a good 15-minute pass every hour,
then I suspect that would work wonders for getting people interested in
satellites again.  The technical requirements for getting into them
would be low enough for "entry-level" amateurs all over the world to
have a crack at them - dual-band HT and a homebrew Arrow clone, and
you're good to go.  Cheap, simple satellites, and cheap, simple ground
stations.  How many could you fly for the cost of one HEO sat and
launch?

Gordon MM0YEQ


___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites (Alan P. Biddle)

[Robert Bruninga]

>> And wouldn?t it be a hoot if [these cubesats]
>> could put their RX/TX into a bent-pipe packet 
>> mode, and then we would have amateur radio 
>> global hand-held text messaging satellite system...
>>
>> Using some of the 2-way very small micro APRS 
>> packet systems, a 2 to 5 Watt transponder will 
>> easily fit... in a small cubesat.  
>> See  www.aprs.org/cubesat-comms.html
> 
> If you could have maybe five or six cubesats 
> with an FM transponder... [with] a good 15-minute pass 
> every hour... would work wonders for getting people 
> interested in satellites again.  ... [with a]
> dual-band HT and a homebrew Arrow clone

The beauty of the APRS packet text-messaging relay cubesat is
that it can have a 10 times higher power transmitter compared to
an FM voice transponder for the same average power budget.  This
makes it workable on an HT with just a whip antenna, instead of
needing a handheld beam.  Plus, each message takes one second
instead of 15 for each QSO. 

So that is why I prefer handheld packet text messaging as a
cubesat mission.  Ten times the downlink power budget and 15
times the number of contacts per pass.

AO51 downlink could be 10 times as strong if the transmitter
would just drop when not in use...

Bob, WB4APR


___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites (Alan P. Biddle)

[John B. Stephensen]

The 1200 bps Pacsats used an uncoded BPSK downlink on 70 cm and worked fine 
with 1/4-wavelength vertical antenna on the ground. As I remember, they only 
generated 1 watt of RF. A 2-meter downlink using an error correcting code 
would give 4 times the data rate with the same power. Digital voice now fits 
in 1200 bps so you could support APRS plus multiple voice channels.

73,

John
KD6OZH

- Original Message - 
From: "Robert Bruninga" 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 14:42 UTC
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites (Alan P. Biddle)


>>> And wouldn?t it be a hoot if [these cubesats]
>>> could put their RX/TX into a bent-pipe packet
>>> mode, and then we would have amateur radio
>>> global hand-held text messaging satellite system...
>>>
>>> Using some of the 2-way very small micro APRS
>>> packet systems, a 2 to 5 Watt transponder will
>>> easily fit... in a small cubesat.
>>> See  www.aprs.org/cubesat-comms.html
>>
>> If you could have maybe five or six cubesats
>> with an FM transponder... [with] a good 15-minute pass
>> every hour... would work wonders for getting people
>> interested in satellites again.  ... [with a]
>> dual-band HT and a homebrew Arrow clone
>
> The beauty of the APRS packet text-messaging relay cubesat is
> that it can have a 10 times higher power transmitter compared to
> an FM voice transponder for the same average power budget.  This
> makes it workable on an HT with just a whip antenna, instead of
> needing a handheld beam.  Plus, each message takes one second
> instead of 15 for each QSO.
>
> So that is why I prefer handheld packet text messaging as a
> cubesat mission.  Ten times the downlink power budget and 15
> times the number of contacts per pass.
>
> AO51 downlink could be 10 times as strong if the transmitter
> would just drop when not in use...
>
> Bob, WB4APR
>
>
> ___
> Sent via amsat...@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...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites (Alan P. Biddle)

[Luc Leblanc]

On 27 Sep 2009 at 10:42, Robert Bruninga wrote:

> 
> AO51 downlink could be 10 times as strong if the transmitter
> would just drop when not in use...
> 
> Bob, WB4APR
> 
> 

This also puzzled me why AO-51 is continuously TX on? Why not configure it like 
SO-50 only in TX when a carrier (with or without tone) is 
detected on the uplink? If the purpose for the always on TX is for tracking 
just make the squelch tail a bit longer. 


"-"


Luc Leblanc VE2DWE
Skype VE2DWE
www.qsl.net/ve2dwe
DSTAR urcall VE2DWE
WAC BASIC CW PHONE SATELLITE

 

___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites (Alan P. Biddle)

[Bruce Robertson]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Gordon JC Pearce  wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 22:19 -0400, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>> >> At a SmallSat conference... this summer,
>> >> I was amused at the casual assumption by
>> >> a researcher that 50, cubesats could be
>> >> launched as part of an upper atmosphere
>> >> project using ham frequencies for the
>> >> downlinks.
>>
>> And wouldn’t it be a hoot if everyone of them could put their
>> RX/TX into a bent-pipe packet mode, and then we would have
>> amateur radio global hand-held text messaging satellite
>> system...
>>
>> >>  (They would have a lifetime of only 3-4 months.)
>>
>> But it would be FUN for a while!
>>
>> Using some of the 2-way very small micro APRS packet systems, a
>> 2 to 5 Watt transponder will easily fit on a singl circuit card
>> in a small cubesat.  See  www.aprs.org/cubesat-comms.html
>>
>> Bob, WB4APR
>
> If you could have maybe five or six cubesats with an FM transponder
> orbiting in such a way that there was a good 15-minute pass every hour,
> then I suspect that would work wonders for getting people interested in
> satellites again.  The technical requirements for getting into them
> would be low enough for "entry-level" amateurs all over the world to
> have a crack at them - dual-band HT and a homebrew Arrow clone, and
> you're good to go.  Cheap, simple satellites, and cheap, simple ground
> stations.  How many could you fly for the cost of one HEO sat and
> launch?
>
> Gordon MM0YEQ
>

In a recent conversation on this list, I did the math and
conservatively estimated that 125 1U cubesats could be launched for
the current quoted price of a HEO launch alone.

The more I think about this digital cubesat constellation proposal,
the more I see its merits. Beyond the plain fact that it is
financially doable, as an emergency services platform it would be
genuinely useful, since even a low LEO will provide communication
outside the disaster zone in most cases, and compared to a HEO setup,
it would have the advantage of being usable for nearly every ham
anywhere.

The problem, as I think Bob has noted before, is momentum: a
constellation of these is very useful; one of them is much less so.
The group that puts up the first of them, then, is not doing much of
interest and hopes that others will follow to increase the 'network
effect'. For this reason, we cannot expect (most) university cubesat
missions to look merely like this, unless their institution has a
special interest in emergency communications, as Bob's uniquely is.

Perhaps we could turn the tables and offer university groups a small
amount of space  in the cube for an experiment in exchange for
defraying the launch cost. Those universities that are especially
interested in the natural science side might jump at this, and doubly
so if they knew that they'd have an international APRS network
collecting their data. We could play the role of IntelSat for a change
:-)

KD6OZH's mentioning of a 1200 bps voice codec is very interesting,
too. I see that DSTAR's AMBE is down to 2000  with error correction,
and Speex operates down to 2000, too, though I think without error
correction. (I find the latter much more engaging as a ham, since it
is open source.) It would be a hoot to do a voice conference over the
Internet using a sample of low bitrate codecs and just get a sense of
what might be possible. One downside of voice is that it would occupy
the transponder far more than messaging, and Bob's favorable power
calculations would need to be estimated downwards.

I guess another aspect of the cubesat approach is that the cost of
failure is much lower. If a low bitrate audio codec doesn't really
work well, it would be a less expensive enterprise and easier to chalk
up to experience.

73, Bruce
VE9QRP

___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites (Alan P. Biddle)

[Gordon JC Pearce]

On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 16:02 -0300, Bruce Robertson wrote:

> In a recent conversation on this list, I did the math and
> conservatively estimated that 125 1U cubesats could be launched for
> the current quoted price of a HEO launch alone.

I think Bob Bruniga mentioned something like $400 to build a packet
satellite.  If that's correct - $400 per unit - then I will split in
$100 to get the first one started (and more, if the exchange rate swings
in my favour again).


> The problem, as I think Bob has noted before, is momentum: a
> constellation of these is very useful; one of them is much less so.
> The group that puts up the first of them, then, is not doing much of
> interest and hopes that others will follow to increase the 'network
> effect'. For this reason, we cannot expect (most) university cubesat
> missions to look merely like this, unless their institution has a
> special interest in emergency communications, as Bob's uniquely is.

I personally have no interest in emergency comms, but I would like to
see useful packet satellites.  If they're that cheap to build, then we
should have a big stack of them ready to fly.

> KD6OZH's mentioning of a 1200 bps voice codec is very interesting,
> too. I see that DSTAR's AMBE is down to 2000  with error correction,
> and Speex operates down to 2000, too, though I think without error
> correction. (I find the latter much more engaging as a ham, since it
> is open source.) It would be a hoot to do a voice conference over the
> Internet using a sample of low bitrate codecs and just get a sense of
> what might be possible. One downside of voice is that it would occupy
> the transponder far more than messaging, and Bob's favorable power
> calculations would need to be estimated downwards.

Would the packet satellite be capable of bent-pipe operation though?
You'd need to transmit and receive simultaneously to get that working.
I'd far prefer to use Speex rather than the locked-down proprietary AMBE
codecs.

> I guess another aspect of the cubesat approach is that the cost of
> failure is much lower. If a low bitrate audio codec doesn't really
> work well, it would be a less expensive enterprise and easier to chalk
> up to experience.

You could also just blow new firmware on it remotely.  If it bricked,
that's a shame but at least you tried...

Gordon MM0YEQ

___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites (Alan P. Biddle)

[Jim Walls]

Bruce Robertson wrote:
> In a recent conversation on this list, I did the math and
> conservatively estimated that 125 1U cubesats could be launched for
> the current quoted price of a HEO launch alone.
>
> The more I think about this digital cubesat constellation proposal,
> the more I see its merits.

I guess that would be if you had the slightest interest in digital 
satellite operation.  Personally I have absolutely ZERO interest in 
digital satellite operation, only very little in the single channel FM 
birds, a lot more in linear LEO birds, and even more in linear HEO 
birds.  For the most part, I don't care about DXing, but actually being 
able to talk to someone for more than a few minutes is rather nice.  I 
will admit that I was happy to get Africa confirmed to complete my 
Satellite Worked All Continents a few years ago - only to have the ARRL 
lose the cards.

-- 
73
-
Jim Walls - K6CCC
j...@k6ccc.org
Ofc:  818-548-4804
http://home.earthlink.net/~k6ccc
AMSAT Member 32537 - WSWSS Member 395

___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites (Alan P. Biddle)

[Bruce Robertson]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Mark VandeWettering  wrote:
>>
>> At a SmallSat conference I attended on behalf of AMSAT this summer, I was
>> amused at the casual assumption by a researcher that 50, Five Oh, cubesats
>> could be launched as part of an upper atmosphere project using ham
>> frequencies for the downlinks.  (They would have a lifetime of only 3-4
>> months.)  Jan King, W3GEY/VK4GEY, who does coordination of satellite
>> frequencies, gently but firmly brought them down to earth a bit.
>>
>> On the one hand, we get new hams with interests in space communications from
>> these projects, but on the other we need to prevent the de facto
>> appropriation of needed frequencies.  A fine line to walk.
>>
>> Alan
>> WA4SCA


Tell them they can put up 500, as long as the downlink is on S-band :-)

73, Bruce
VE9QRP

___
Sent via amsat...@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

[amsat-bb] Re: All Satellites (Alan P. Biddle)

[John B. Stephensen]

FDMDV uses a 1400 bps codec, occupies only 1100 Hz and operates with any SSB 
transceiver. Comunications doesn't have to be full duplex. At 12-16 kbps the 
satellite and ground stations could alternate with short bursts of voice or 
text. This wouldn't fit in a 2.4 kHz SSB bandwidth but would require a 16-20 
kHz wide filter or use of a transverter and a simple SDR radio like the 
SoftRock.

73,

John
KD6OZH

- Original Message - 
From: "Gordon JC Pearce" 
>
>> KD6OZH's mentioning of a 1200 bps voice codec is very interesting,
>> too. I see that DSTAR's AMBE is down to 2000  with error correction,
>> and Speex operates down to 2000, too, though I think without error
>> correction. (I find the latter much more engaging as a ham, since it
>> is open source.) It would be a hoot to do a voice conference over the
>> Internet using a sample of low bitrate codecs and just get a sense of
>> what might be possible. One downside of voice is that it would occupy
>> the transponder far more than messaging, and Bob's favorable power
>> calculations would need to be estimated downwards.
>
> Would the packet satellite be capable of bent-pipe operation though?
> You'd need to transmit and receive simultaneously to get that working.
> I'd far prefer to use Speex rather than the locked-down proprietary AMBE
> codecs.

___
Sent via amsat...@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