[amsat-bb] Re: The Whole GEO Package - EMCOMM

[Roger Kolakowski]

I actually equate the preparation and package to being a combination of the
previous efforts of Civil Defense and MARS (not the planet.)

During the Cold War the government funded the placement of 2 meter Gonset
Communicators in many CD Shelters and city/town communication facilities
around the country. Nets were held. Groups were formed.

Currently I do know that, at least in Massachusetts, there is still funding
available to the towns for a "Civil Defense" director in the local
governments.

So...as part of the EMCOMM..."Civil Defense" services are again strengthened
through a local "Communications Officer", the old lessons of traffic passing
are updated and practiced ala "MARS" TYPE traffic nets (though not under
Military oversight), new "standards" are set, satellite "nets" are formed
for readiness training allowing the development of "systems" and as usual
"emergency traffic" gets priority.

This may preclude 100% access by the casual operator during "net" evenings,
but assuming timezone differences and a sufficiently wide passband, these
"CD" nets might be held one day/night per week.

In this case, we prove and provide capability, develop a "league" of
operators who can become EMCOMM qualified while allowing themselves and
others to use the satellite "freetime" while developing their skills at
disaster relief if they so choose.

Previously these activities came under the "umbrella" of the ARRL. That
would be one solution, however there is a real possibility that this becomes
an opportunity for AMSAT to step up and drag EMCOMM kicking and screaming
into this century.

Will it require more of an organization, yes...will it require more
"members"...yes,
but the opportunities for digital to pencil traffic handling and
communications are endless.

Roger
WA1KAT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Edward Cole" <kl7uw at acsalaska.net>
To: <brobertson at mta.ca>; <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Whole GEO Package


> At 04:29 AM 12/20/2007, Bruce Robertson wrote:
>
> >In this spirit, might I ask this list to imagine what needs to be done to
> >make the emcomm/geo package a reality? The following is my rather long
> >analysis of the situation.
> >
> >I believe the proponents of the Intelsat agreement have done us a great
> >service by identifying a real and persisting need which AMSAT can
uniquely
> >fulfill. By doing so, they not only greatly increase our chances of
funding
> >otherwise prohibitively expensive launches, they give our branch of the
> >hobby a greater reason to do what we do.
> >
> >However, I also think the EMCOMM branch of our hobby has different needs
> >than the usual satellite station operator. If we are to really and
honestly
> >make the world a safer place and save lives, I think we will need to
> >provide a GEO EMCOMM package that will require us as a organization to
> >branch into some new and exciting efforts. Let me explain what I mean.
> >
> >Traditionally, a satellite station has been developed through one
person's
> >expertise gradually growing regarding a number of interrelated aspects:
low
> >signal VHF and UHF operation; the mechanics of an az-el antenna array;
> >computer control; and doppler correction. Certain satellites or operating
> >habits allow one to omit one or more of these, but in general it's, even
by
> >ham standards, a challenging array of new skills and understanding. I'd
say
> >the members of AMSAT are self-selected as those who enjoy this challenge
> >and seek to learn as many aspects of the field as possible.
> >
> >However, for an EMCOMM system to be effective, it cannot rely on a broad
> >array of such specialized knowledge: it is unreasonable to expect that
the
> >first ham on the scene of a disaster will be one of the AMSAT 'us', a
> >person who has acquired this specialized knowledge. It is only reasonable
> >to assume that it will be an amateur radio operator, familiar with the
> >general principles of radio theory and operation. In fact, in my region t
he
> >EMCOMM specialists and the technical specialists (if I might put it that
> >way) are often not the same people.
> >
> >So our challenge is more extensive than the challenge that faced AMSAT
with
> >any previous launch: we need to make communication through this bird
> >possible for any ham shmoe who is opening up a box of equipment after,
say
> >an afternoon of instruction half a year ago.   Please note, this is not a
> >matter of dumbing-down the bird or making it uninteresting. In fact, for
> >the old-hands and the technically adept around here this will be very
> >interesting and a great outlet for our skills. In this application, if
not
> >on all birds, we should take it as a sign of success when people
> >effortlessly get connected, because it would mean that, in a true
emergency
> >there would be a greater likelihood of useful service.
> >
> >If this analysis is accurate, we need to imagine, broadly, three things:
a)
> >the services (or modes) this ham will offer to support EMCOMM; b) the box
> >of stuff that this ham opens up; c) the afternoon's training she
undertook
> >to know how to use it. These are interrelated, of course. The training is
> >apropos the box of stuff, and the box of stuff allows the services. They
> >should also, I think, be *standardized* to an extent that has not been
the
> >case before with satellite work. Recently I heard the argument on Amateur
> >Radio Newsline that ham EMCOMM services should be more interchangeable
> >across the continent; the same will surely be the case regarding this
work.
> >Ideally the 'stuff' and the training is the same everywhere so that the
> >shmoe has a chance of recollecting her training and is required to factor
> >out/in as few local variables as possible.
> >
> >The advantage we have is that it isn't unreasonable to expect the box of
> >stuff to be perhaps more pricey than individual hams would like such
things
> >to be.
> >
> >A large part of a) and b) will be determined by the ACP team, whose goal
> >even with Eagle was to provide ground-station hardware alongside the
bird's
> >hardware. (The wisdom of this new approach should be applauded; I'm sure
it
> >has made re-purposing Eagle hardware for P4/EMCOMM much easier to
imagine.)
> >As I've argued before, I think one of the most important mode we can
offer
> >is simple Internet connectivity, allowing the emergency services folks to
> >use the communication tools like email with which they are most familiar.
I
> >hope this will be part of the mix. As for the second half of b) and c), I
> >think it will focus around designing and teaching the use of software.
> >Perhaps the box of stuff will include a laptop that operates well with a
> >specialized linux distribution-on-a-disk, including all the software
tools
> >needed to assess link quality, perform simple communication, etc.  If I'm
> >right, this is fortunate because we seem to have quite a number of adept
> >software developers in our midst.
> >
> >Finally, the course. Can we provide standard lesson-plans, ppt slides and
> >the like? I think this would significantly lower the bar on each of us
> >teaching a session on P4 to our local club or EMCOMM group.
> >
> >I think we should spread the load on these tasks as early as possible,
> >making many of us participants in the final goal of increasing the safety
> >of our communities and nations. I'm excited to hear what others think
about
> >the broader implications of the P4 initiative and how we can deliver on
the
> >whole GEO package.
> >
> >73, Bruce
> >VE9QRP
>
> Bruce,
>
> This is an excellent topic to bring to the -bb.
>
> Off course until the design of P4 has progressed, this is mostly
speculation.
>
> The EMCOMM radio package will most certainly drive the satellite
> requirements, as well.
>
> The ground package needs to be:
> 1- compact (portable)
> 2- standardized (so diverse groups can assemble a package)
> 3- well documented (both for assembly and use)
> 4- versatile to power (anywhere in the world)
> 5- robust (to endure rough handling; harsh environments)
> 6- easy to interface (with computing hdwr; telco; other ham equipment)
> 7- simple to assemble and aim
> 8- affordable
> 9- kit or ready to use (within reason considering the technology)
>
> This should probably be close to the same package that the apartment
> user will have.  This would expand the volume of units made.  design
> be made available to commercial sector to provide units (fitting the
spec).
>
> Hope this gives a starting point.
>
>
> 73,
> Ed - KL7UW
> ======================================
>   BP40IQ   50-MHz - 10-GHz   www.kl7uw.com
> 144-EME: FT-847, mgf-1801, 4x-xpol-20, 185w
> DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa at hotmail.com
> ======================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>