[amsat-bb] Re: Keep It Simple Silly

[David B. Toth]

At 02:49 AM 9/30/2007, Patrick McGrane wrote:
>Regarding Miles desire for simplified electronics, I wholeheartedly agree!
>
>I was very disappointed that amsat-na pushed for the SDX on the german P3E.
>I'm sure its a better receiver but its never flown.
>P3E was built around a proven AO-13 design.
>
>If someone were to fly a payload a quarter of a million miles to the 
>moon, It should be
>dramatically simple and long lasting, That means no short life 
>components like batteries.
>
>N2OEQ

Patrick: it is too bad that you were unable to join us here in 
Hartford, CT this weekend for the TAPR-ARRL DCC ...
There were many presentations on SDR, some by AMSAT personnel ...

The hardware does not GET any simpler than in SDX ... the HUGE 
advantage is that a component with a shifting value (such as might 
occur in a spacecraft with wide temperature swings) does not degrade 
the performance/optimization of a device, because if the hardware 
does age/shift, then that can be compensated for in software ...

By the way, doing an amplifier in DSP/SDR greatly improves the 
efficiency and power budget too ... you do NOT want to fly today's 
missions with yesterday's technology ...

I'd encourage you to visit Pittsburgh for the AMSAT-NA annual meeting 
in October ... you can hear it first hand in the presentations, and 
talk to the people that build hardware and the others that bang bits !

73,

Dave
VE3GYQ/W8
Spencerville, OHJ

President TAPR, INC.