[amsat-bb] Re: The Whole GEO Package

[Edward Cole]

Les,

Then how do the "civilians" set up those nice mw satellite terminal 
phones?  I have seen some that the case cover is the antenna and it 
comes with a compass.  The cover is rotated to settings from a 
chart.  Flip a switch and pick up the handset.

The digital stuff of P4 will "inside" (sort of like Intel is inside 
my computer).  With good packaging and instructions I think it can be 
made simple enough.  I am kind of hoping that the main-stream P4 will 
be more generic satellite that requires some skill in operation, but 
for the EMCOMM unit KISS.

Ed - KL7UW

At 04:32 PM 12/20/2007, sco at sco-inc.com wrote:
>To believe that a traditional ham who operates HF or even on 2m 
>repeaters is going to be able to setup and operate the P4 satellites 
>is a fool's game. Hanging a wire in a tree is a lot different than 
>pointing microwave antennas at a set spot in orbit. Then the sat is 
>basically running "split" something that i doubt many hams know how 
>to do with their radio. Then if we are talking about operating in a 
>digital mode that is another new set up learning skills for the ham 
>op to learn. You can not send an untrained ham to a site and expect 
>them to setup and operate P4 in a microwave digital computer mode. 
>it just will not happen. A lot of people can not even read a compass 
>so they won't be able to even aim the antenna(s). And then what 
>about the proper elevation?  How is the ham to do that without 
>tracking rotors? yes it can be done by hand but there must be a way 
>to measure the angle of elevation and azimuth from the antenna to 
>the satellite. Looks like we will need to develop a lot of training 
>to make EMCOM work with any operators other than old Amsat hands. 
>Maybe we could have an award/training program? After a ham works 50 
>contacts via P4 they might be considered qualified to help teach 
>other non sat hams how to do it.
>
>Les W4SCO
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Whole GEO Package
>From: Edward Cole <kl7uw at acsalaska.net>
>Date: Thu, December 20, 2007 10:30 am
>To: brobertson at mta.ca, amsat-bb at amsat.org
>
>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 the
> >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 <http://www.kl7uw.com>www.kl7uw.com
>144-EME: FT-847, mgf-1801, 4x-xpol-20, 185w
>DUBUS Magazine USA Rep 
><http://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose>dubususa at hotmail.com
>======================================
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sent via 
><http://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose>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>http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb

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
======================================