[amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement

[John Stephensen]

New equipment wouldn't be needed. The concept is to use the PCs that 
amateurs already have to fit more QSOs into the downlink. Uplink frequency 
coordination isn't any harder than on AO10, 13 or 40.

73,

John
KD6OZH

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Virgil Bierschwale" <vbiersch at gmail.com>
To: "'John Stephensen'" <kd6ozh at comcast.net>; "'Clint Bradford'" 
<clintbrad4d at earthlink.net>; <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 03:13 UTC
Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement


> You also could develop a whole new line of amateur radio equipment.
>
> By that, I mean that ham's could use existing transceivers, and for
> satellites that were equipped, they could buy this box that would allow 
> them
> to transmit on channel ?? of frequency ?? and the same on receive.
>
> Of course, that might present a co-ordination nightmare...
>
> Virgil
> N5IVV
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Stephensen [mailto:kd6ozh at comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 9:25 PM
> To: Virgil Bierschwale; 'Clint Bradford'; amsat-bb at amsat.org
> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
>
> The satellite could collect the individual uplink signals and package them
> in one downlink. One TDM downlink would use much less power than FDM
> downlinks and would fit in the bandwidth of existing amateur receivers. 
> Once
> you have DSP in the satellite, there are a lot of possibilities.
>
> 73,
>
> John
> KD6OZH
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Virgil Bierschwale" <vbiersch at gmail.com>
> To: "'John Stephensen'" <kd6ozh at comcast.net>; "'Clint Bradford'"
> <clintbrad4d at earthlink.net>; <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 01:52 UTC
> Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
>
>
>> I've enjoyed reading this segment and I wasn't going to touch it, but 
>> this
>> one makes me want to chip in my two cents.
>>
>> Granted, I'm not up to speed on what ya'll have done or what you haven't
>> done.
>>
>> But we used to use a ucc1 in the navy to receive messages.
>>
>> http://www.virhistory.com/navy/rtty-mux-ucc1.htm
>>
>> It would allow us to receive something like 16 or 32 separate traffic
>> channels on one frequency.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be possible to develop something like that in satellite
>> communications?
>>
>> I ask because if you were to do it, you could substantially increase the
>> amount of channels that you could process?
>>
>> Virgil
>> N5IVV
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org] On
>> Behalf Of John Stephensen
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:31 PM
>> To: Clint Bradford; amsat-bb at amsat.org
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
>>
>> If we want the most "bang for the buck", it would be something that
>> supports
>> the most QSOs per watt of solar power. Since most hams have computers,
>> something that supports half a dozen PSK31 sessions would suffice. Given
>> the
>> new open-source voice codec you could also make something that supports
>> multiple digital voice QSOs with less power than now required for analog
>> FM
>> or SSB.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> John
>> KD6OZH
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Clint Bradford" <clintbrad4d at earthlink.net>
>> To: <amsat-bb at amsat.org>; <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 00:27 UTC
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-40 Replacement
>>
>>
>>>>> ... launch opportunities are so rare that we ought to
>>> fly the most capable equipment we can on those rare
>>> occasions when we can get a launch ...
>>>
>>> Perhaps we should define, "most capable equipment." And
>>> we also need to define "bang for the buck."
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>