[sarex] Re: further late reply regarding ISS simplex

[Kenneth, N5VHO]

I listen to the uplink (split) frequency as well as
the downlink frequency so I can avoid QRM to other
local operators. I can identify any inconsiderate
operators too.

Kenneth - N5VHO

--- Stan Vandiver <w4sv at arrl.net> wrote:

> The "transmit-at-will" method of split-frequency
> operation is also 
> inconsiderate, since no attempt at all is made to
> take turns (with 
> those near you) in a gentlemanly manner.  For that
> we are "rewarded" 
> with a clear downlink... most of the time.  I still
> find 
> unknowledgable people transmitting on the downlink
> from time to time, 
> and I try to educate them to proper splits and
> operation so they can 
> make a QSO too.
> 
> If you have 10 callers in the Chicago-land area,
> courteously taking 
> turns calling the ISS on simplex... that may be as
> much as a 90% 
> reduction in the QRM (only 1 out of 10 calling at a
> time) from this 
> area.... but probably a little less due to the
> randomness of calling 
> patterns.  I realize the ISS footprint is much
> larger, and you can't 
> take turns with the whole country... but if every
> urban area were to 
> operate similarly, there would indeed be at least
> some reduction in 
> QRM for the crew.
> 
> Inconsiderate people on simplex too?  Sure,
> sometimes.  But the key 
> is to educate people to proper operation, whether
> simplex or split.  
> And on simplex, you can IDENTIFY who is
> inconsiderate of others.
> 
> Best regards,
> Stan/W4SV
> 
> 
> On 11 Aug 2006 at 20:17, Robert Bruninga wrote:
> 
> > > Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone
> calling 
> > > whether its split or simplex operation so why
> not make it
> > simplex!
> > 
> > Because many of us live near inconsiderate
> operators that step
> > all
> > Over the downlink by transmitting on the uplink. 
> Simplex is
> > just not a good idea.
> > The downlink should be separate from the uplink so
> that everyone
> > can hear the downlink without interfererence from
> uplink
> > stations.
> > 
> > Bob 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: sarex-bounces at AMSAT.Org 
> > > [mailto:sarex-bounces at AMSAT.Org] On Behalf Of
> McGrane
> > > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:43 PM
> > > To: Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] Ransom;
> bruninga at usna.edu
> > > Cc: Manned space BBS
> > > Subject: [sarex] Re: further late reply
> regarding ISS simplex
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hello again- the astronauts will hear everyone
> calling 
> > > whether its split or simplex operation so why
> not make it
> > simplex!
> > > 
> > > pat
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Ransom, Kenneth G.
> (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
> > > 
> > > > It sounds like your issue is not that split
> frequencies are
> > bad but 
> > > > that multiple uplinks makes it difficult for
> the crew to 
> > > listen to one 
> > > > uplink. ITU region regulations for ground
> station 
> > > operations are the 
> > > > culprit. Space has no borders but Earth does
> so have of the 
> > > problem is 
> > > > getting everyone to agree on a single uplink.
> Not everyone
> > in the 
> > > > world has the same frequency allocations nor
> do they use 
> > > the available 
> > > > spectrum in their region the same way.
> > > > 
> > > > The issue is not the 20-30 miles but the
> number of callers 
> > > in the 2000 
> > > > km wide footprint. The station has to listen
> to all of 
> > > them. Since you 
> > > > can't hear all of them, it becomes difficult
> to know when 
> > > someone is 
> > > > talking or not without guidance from the
> station operator.
> > > > 
> > > > In the MIR days, the crew did not have the
> luxury of near
> > full time 
> > > > satellite communication that provides voice,
> email 
> > > communication and 
> > > > an IP phone that lets them make phone calls.
> If the MIR 
> > > crew wanted to 
> > > > talk to someone, they needed to use the ham
> radio or the 
> > > Russian VHF 
> > > > space to ground system. The ISS crew has
> plenty of options 
> > > to choose 
> > > > from when they want to communicate and it
> depends on the 
> > > personality 
> > > > of the crew as to which ones get utilized.
> > > > 
> > > > Kenneth - N5VHO
> > > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: sarex-bounces at AMSAT.Org
> > [mailto:sarex-bounces at AMSAT.Org] On 
> > > > Behalf Of McGrane
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:43 PM
> > > > To: Manned space BBS
> > > > Subject: [sarex] further late reply regarding
> ISS simplex
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Greetings from patrick N2OEQ
> > > > 
> > > > Despite support of the present frequency
> scheme for the ISS
> > I still 
> > > > wish to disagree with the policy of split
> operation with
> > different 
> > > > phone uplinks.
> > > > 
> > > > Back when the MIR was up, the russians
> operated simplex and 
> > > left the 
> > > > radio on to listen for callers.
> > > > On several occasions, I called the MIR
> according to my
> > tracking 
> > > > program and was rewarded several times with a
> response.
> > > > 
> > > > With two different uplink frequencies, the
> astronauts are
> > less 
> > > > inclined to leave the radio on to listen for
> callers.
> > > > 
> > > > When there were several callers here on
> simplex responding
> > to a CQ 
> > > > call from the MIR, we acted civilized and took
> turns and 
> > > everyone made 
> > > > contacts so I dont buy the absolute need for
> split
> > operation.
> > > > Besides, how many callers could there be
> within 20 or 30 
> > > miles up to 
> > > > the horizon.
> > > > 
> > > > We've had years of robot like amateur radio on
> the ISS. How
> > about 
> > > > loosening the ties!
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for the soapbox..... pat
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ----
> > > > Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG
> courtesy 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com