[amsat-bb] Update: Rent GEO bandwidth for US

[Zach Metzinger]

On 2019-08-22 07:36, Michelle Thompson via AMSAT-BB wrote:
> Uplink Requirements from Echostar have been outlined to me, but detailed
> discussions on how independent we can get have not yet been held. Worst
> case it’s their modem in an aggregator, multiple uplinks would have to been
> carefully coordinated (or scheduled).

I've done some thinking on this, and I don't think it is something that 
Amateur Radio funds should be spent on. Others have made similar 
arguments, and here are mine.

> This is indeed much more restrictive than the ham-only 4B (Virginia Tech,
> they have renewed their search for a launch) and Phase 4 Space (ORI, in
> development and actively fundraising). But, this is a relatively
> inexpensive way to test and learn a lot of new things.

I don't see that the Amateur Radio community learns anything from this 
exercise that couldn't be done with a ground-based system on our own 
bands. There is no Doppler correction to be done, and path loss can be 
simulated with attenuation and/or lower power operation. Most of the 
link is hidden from the operator, and the underlying information 
encoding is ridiculously complex, far more than is required for a KISS 
EMCOMM system.

> We have 4 years until end of life of Echostar9. That is more than the
> guaranteed mission time for WFOV ended up being at the end of that
> rideshare offer. For an order of magnitude less money.

But how could that $96,000, over 4 years, benefit the AMSAT mission of 
Greater Orbit Larger Footprint? I think quite a bit, but I'm biased:

De-orbit devices, required for the GOLF missions, are expensive, and 
testing facility fees need to be paid before launch. How about research 
into amateur-developed cold gas or hybrid oxidizer thrusters?

Development of a complementary ground "package" which could get 
prospective new satellite operators on the air for (pick a number -- I'm 
guessing < $200). Might not be a contest station, but would provide the 
early success to kindle interest in this aspect of the hobby.

> If there is a serious show stopper in here somewhere, then we fully
> document and move on. 

As others have noted, we are now a stop-gap in EMCOMM. We have plenty of 
1st responders in our current society, but education and learning the 
technology has fallen by the wayside. Before long, no-one will know how 
to make the machines work anymore.[1] If we want to keep Amateur Radio 
relevant, we should focus on an under-served area that was part of our 
founding principles:

"(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to 
contribute to the advancement of the radio art.

(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules 
which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and 
technical phases of the art.

(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service 
of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts."

We're sorely lacking in these areas, as evidenced by the plethora of new 
licensees who only know how to press the PTT on an FM rig. Real 
knowledge takes an investment of time and mentoring from those who have 
gone before. I do not see that your proposal encourages a new ham to 
build a microwave antenna, develop receivers and transmitters for our 
sparsely-used microwave bands, or debug why they can't hear or be heard 
on an amateur bird.

Sincerely,

--- Zach
N0ZGO

[1] ST:TOS "The Cage"