[amsat-bb] Re: Why do the amsats get more and more complex?

Tue Sep 19 13:48:59 PDT 2006

You've forgotten D-Star digital voice and data repeaters.

73,

John
KD6OZH

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR]" <kenneth.g.ransom at nasa.gov>
To: "Tim Tapio" <k4shf at k4shf.com>; "Jason White" <jason at jason.white.name>; 
"Amsat BB" <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 19:52 UTC
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do the amsats get more and more complex?

> While your local repeater has not seen the need for using newer
> advancements, others now have transistors,  Phone patches, Microcomputer
> controllers, Voice mailboxes, IRLP and/or EchoLink access, RF backbones
> for linking, remote bases ...
>
> I understand keeping what works but that does not mean that we should
> not explore new possibilities at the same time.
>
> Kenneth - N5VHO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org] On
> Behalf Of Tim Tapio
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:59 PM
> To: 'Jason White'; 'Amsat BB'
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Why do the amsats get more and more complex?
>
> Interesting to note, our local repeater doesn't see the need to
> continually push the envelope, yet when we put one on a spacecraft, we
> seem to need the latest technology, not always available to the ham that
> just wants to go out in the backyard and operate without having to spend
> umpteen dollars to build up a station.  Like the guy working HF with a
> simple transceiver and a vertical, some of us just want to operate and
> don't have the time/interest/money to spend building the station it
> requires to work some of the more exotic modes.  I haven't seen any L
> band radios in my price range and S band seems to have lost interest
> (even though I'm told it was pretty simple to get on to)
>
> My $.02 as a new operator.
>
> 73 de Tim, K4SHF  FM04
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org] On
> Behalf Of Jason White
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 10:49 AM
> To: Amsat BB
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Why do the amsats get more and more complex?
>
> This is intended to be an honest question that I've wanted to ask, but I
> don't want to spark controversy or long threads that monopolize the
> reflector. I have a feeling this could go either way, so I'm just asking
> politely that the thread not go that way! It's not my intent.
>
> Anyway, I'm just curious why it seems that every new satellite project
> proposed seems to be bigger and more complex than the last? I keep
> hearing about exotic modes and uplink/downlink bands for P3E.. software
> defined transceivers, etc. etc. and what it looks like to me are more
> and more failure points. I understand the need to push the limits of
> technology as a justification for our very existence, but personally I
> feel like the designs are overly complicated and highly priced. I'm not
> ready to switch my earth station to SDRs, for instance.. I'm dubious
> about putting one into orbit.. then again, I'm not skilled enough to
> make those sorts of decisions.
>
> What I'm getting at is that Oscar 7 proved how reliable older technology
> can be..  For the price of one of the  phase 3 birds  it seems like
> several Mode B linear transponder sats could be put up, or a few more FM
> sats. I personally would much rather see a modest mode B sat in AO-40s
> intended orbital pattern than to try to wrangle parts for microwave.
>
> Did it get too easy for people or something?
>
> Wouldn't it be better to separate out some of the more experimental
> stuff from the old standbys? That way a failure of one whole sat would
> still leave something usable for the same money spent.  My vote would be
> to piggyback a completely independent analog satellite onto P3E "just in
> case".
>
> Like I said, please, I'm looking for a real, thought out response.. I
> didn't write the above to be a critque or to troll or anything like
> that, I am just curious because it seems to me, as an outside observer,
> that after the failure of AO-40 the direction was to go bigger and even
> more complicated, which left me cold considering what I had done at my
> station to work AO-40. Even when AO-40 was up I felt it was very odd
> that time and money were spent on components and systems that were never
> used (did the solar panels ever deploy?) Yes, I know the sat was
> damaged, and that explains a good bit of it, but it still felt like some
> things were wasted. Emphasis on "felt".. I couldn't know the real
> process that resulted in the decisions made.
>
> If someone could help me understand why the direction is the way it is
> maybe I could get excited about the bigger sats, but I think you get
> more "bang for the buck" with the smaller less complicated birds. My
> favorite so far is PCSat I. Mostly off the shelf hardware and I had a
> very easy time digipeating APRS through it. One of those in an
> elliptical orbit would be a hoot!
>
> 73s,
>
> Jason - N1XBP
>
> P.S. - One last plea, this isn't a troll! I'm worried people will think
> it is.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
> program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
> program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb 