[amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band

[Mike Seguin N1JEZ]

For those interested in AO-7, here's the FCC 432 uplink waiver and the 
denial of the 2304.1 downlink...

http://users.burlingtontelecom.net/~n1jez@burlingtontelecom.net/images/FCCAO-7.jpg

watch any wrap...

73,
Mike, N1JEZ
AMSAT 29649
AO-7 command op
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "i8cvs" <domenico.i8cvs at tin.it>
To: "Greg D" <ko6th.greg at gmail.com>; <APBIDDLE at MAILAPS.ORG>
Cc: "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:23 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band


> Hi Greg, KO6TH
>
> For the history no OSCAR satellite carried on a Mode-L Beacon.
>
> OSCAR-7 carried on a Mode-S beacon on 2304.1 MHz built by the
> San Bernardino Microwave Society but it was never officially turned
> on because of  international treaty constraints (bandplan) so that it
> was not receiving the autorization by the FCC
>
> 73" de
>
> i8CVS Domenico
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg D" <ko6th.greg at gmail.com>
> To: <APBIDDLE at MAILAPS.ORG>
> Cc: "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 5:31 AM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
>
>
>> I believe it was Oscar-7.
>>
>> Greg  KO6TH
>>
>>
>> Alan wrote:
>> > Someone years ago told me that one of the early amateur satellites had 
>> > a
>> > mode-L beacon, but because the rules changed, it was never turned on. 
>> > I
>> > haven't been able to verify or disprove this story.
>> >
>> > Alan
>> > WA4SCA
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Trevor .
>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 4:10 AM
>> > To: amsat-bb at amsat.org
>> > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Allocations in L-band
>> >
>> > --- On Mon, 19/11/12, Richard Ferryman<g4bbh at btinternet.com>  wrote:
>> >> Just curious - Can someone enlighten me as to why there is no
> allocation
>> >> for satellite downlinks in L-band (at least in the bandplans I have
> seen).
>> >> There are uplinks around 1267 to 1269 MHz. Is it due to possibility of
>> >> interference with commercial/military/aeronautical systems?
>> > I believe it dates back to a WARC conference in about 1971. Prior to
> that
>> > the Amateur Service had I believe been able to use any Amateur
> Frequencies
>> > just as they can still do for that other form of Space Communication -
> Moon
>> > Bounce (EME).
>> >
>> > Wayne Green W2NSD does make references to the loss of satellite
> frequencies
>> > a few times in his column in 73 Magazine from that era, see 73 Mag
> archive
>> > at http://archive.org/search.php?query=73%20magazine
>> >
>> > Although a separate service, the Amateur-satellite Service, was created
> they
>> > were only given access a limited sub-set of the Amateur Service
> frequencies.
>> > For the UHF and Microwave bands the satellite segments were all remote
> from
>> > the terrestrial weak-signal segment meaning separate equipment had to 
>> > be
>> > built to work satellites. Back in those days even 435 MHz would have
> seemed
>> > "remote" from the 432 MHz weak-signal area due to the use of 28 to 432
> MHz
>> > transvertors that only covered a narrow 2 MHz segment of the band. We
> share
>> > 432-438 MHz with commercial SAR satellites but why in the 70's we
> weren't
>> > allowed to use the whole of 432-438 I do not know. Maybe no-one thought
> to
>> > ask for the whole segment ?
>> >
>> > The same with 1260-1270, why it's there I don't know perhaps someone 
>> > can
>> > enlighten us. The band 1260-1300 MHz is used for wideband Global
> Positioning
>> > transmissions from Galileo, see
>> > http://www.southgatearc.org/articles/galileo.htm
>> >
>> > Do restrictions that were applied to the Amateur-satellite Service 40
> years
>> > ago (but not to Moonbounce) still have any relevance today ? again I
> don't
>> > know.
>> >
>> > Ideally the Amateur-satellite Service should have access to the
> weak-signal
>> > segments of all the UHF and Microwave bands for both Earth-to-Space and
>> > Space-to-Earth so we would only need to build one set of equipment on
> each
>> > band for both terrestrial and satellite working. It would be good if
> IARU
>> > were to work towards that objective.
>> >
>> > 73 Trevor M5AKA
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>