| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 01.08.14 20:43l 760 Lines 26624 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB9266
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V9 266
Path: IW8PGT<IZ3LSV<ED1ZAC<CX2SA
Sent: 140801/1841Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM #:8851 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB9266
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. More On Rocket Lab's Launcher (B J)
2. Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (Bill Ress)
3. Re: Equatorial Crossing Data (EQX) (Glen Gardner)
4. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (M5AKA)
5. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (Paul Stoetzer)
6. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (Bill Ress)
7. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (B J)
8. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (John Becker)
9. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (Bill Ress)
10. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (Paul Stoetzer)
11. Re: Equatorial Crossing Data (EQX) (EMike McCardel)
12. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (B J)
13. Today on DL83 and DK99 (David Maciel (XE3DX))
14. Re: Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight (Paul Stoetzer)
15. SatPC32 with dual radios (Larry Ryan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 15:12:13 +0000
From: B J <va6bmj@xxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] More On Rocket Lab's Launcher
Message-ID:
<CAP7QzkPZ+XuD4Y1wd3qEjk5CTXz9zwQqQgrgkcxMV1PQRxkXzQ@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/30/rocket-lab-funding-sources/
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/01/rocket-labs-history/
I'm reminded of that line from the movie "Jerry Maguire": "show me
the money". It would be nice if what was advertised is actually what
the company delivers, as it could provide a means by which amateur
radio satellites could be easily and cheaply put into orbit.
73s
Bernhard VA6BMJ @ DO33FL
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 08:45:21 -0700
From: Bill Ress <bill@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID: <53DBB611.3040600@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Spaceflight has released it's latest pricing for launching various
satellite sizes and orbit. Read it and weep. Pricing continues to rise.
http://spaceflightservices.com/pricing-plans/
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:53:31 +0000
From: Glen Gardner <glen.gardner@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Equatorial Crossing Data (EQX)
Message-ID: <53DBB7FB.2050605@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
You can easily find the times for equatorial crossing for ascending
passes from the element set.
Consider Oscar 7
Satellite: AO-07
Catalog number: 07530
Epoch time: 14211.80120610
Element set: 27
Inclination: 101.4754 deg
RA of node: 192.2023 deg
Eccentricity: 0.0011666
Arg of perigee: 207.8798 deg
Mean anomaly: 270.9717 deg
Mean motion: 12.53605918 rev/day
Decay rate: -2.2e-07 rev/day^2
Epoch rev: 81698
Checksum: 281
The epoch time is the reference time for that element set. It also
happens to be the time for the ascending node (equatorial crossing
North-to-South).
In this case it is "14211.80120610" which comes out to the year 2014,
day 211 and the hour comes out to 19.22 hours.. or approximately 19
hours, 13 minutes, 44 seconds.
Ignoring the decay rate, the next ascending node will be in one orbital
period. You can get this by dividing the number of minutes in a day by
the mean motion: 1440/12.53605918=114.869 minutes after the epoch time.
Getting the descending node is more problematic if the orbit is highly
eccentric. In the case of Oscar 7, the eccentricity is small, and it is
close enough to a circular orbit that it is reasonable to assert that
the descending crossing of the equator is very close to 1/2 orbital
period after the ascending node (unless your TLE's are more than a few
days old).
Glen
AA8C
On 08/01/2014 03:07 AM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
> i8CVS posted the directions to calculate EQX and everything else
> needed to use an OSCARLATOR from Keplerian elements back in 2003.
>
> http://www.amsat.org/amsat/archive/amsat-bb/200203/msg00749.html
>
> I haven't done any programming in forever, but maybe I'll try to write
> a short program to automate those calculations at some point (unless
> someone already has).
>
> 73,
>
> Paul, N8HM
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:51 PM, EMike McCardel <mccardelm@xxxxx.xxx>
wrote:
>> Does anyone know of a tracking application or program or some other
software or existing source that will still produces or publishes equatorial
crossing data for current satellites?
>>
>> EMike
>>
>> EMike McCardel, KC8YLD
>> VP for Educational Relations AMSAT-NA
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 17:16:00 +0100
From: M5AKA <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
To: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID:
<1406909760.2222.YahooMailNeo@xxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
The $295,000 for a 3U CubeSat to LEO (which presumably means a 600 km or
lower LEO) seems comparable with prices from others using proven launchers
(typically $100k for 1U).
It highlights the importance of partnering with others, such as Educational
establishments to defray costs.
73 Trevor M5AKA
On Friday, 1 August 2014, 16:45, Bill Ress <bill@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
Spaceflight has released it's latest pricing for launching various
satellite sizes and orbit. Read it and weep. Pricing continues to rise.
http://spaceflightservices.com/pricing-plans/
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 12:27:39 -0400
From: Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@xxxx.xxx>
To: M5AKA <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID:
<CABzOSOp5UVSmux1utQ_a7=wLk8z8BufJ+aakO4SG-VxNtrf6mQ@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
The last time I saw this site, they did list prices for 1U and 2U
CubeSats. Wonder why they don't anymore.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:16 PM, M5AKA <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx> wrote:
> The $295,000 for a 3U CubeSat to LEO (which presumably means a 600 km or
lower LEO) seems comparable with prices from others using proven launchers
(typically $100k for 1U).
>
>
> It highlights the importance of partnering with others, such as
Educational establishments to defray costs.
>
> 73 Trevor M5AKA
>
>
>
> On Friday, 1 August 2014, 16:45, Bill Ress <bill@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> Spaceflight has released it's latest pricing for launching various
> satellite sizes and orbit. Read it and weep. Pricing continues to rise.
>
> http://spaceflightservices.com/pricing-plans/
>
> Regards...Bill - N6GHz
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 09:35:24 -0700
From: Bill Ress <bill@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID: <53DBC1CC.3060007@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi Paul,
Good question about the 1U and 2U.
I found the $650 mil for a 3U to "GTO" interesting. As Trevor says,
launch costs might not be out of reach if we can find some deep pocket
"university" partners. That would fall in line with the AMSAT strategy
of supporting the CMD/COMM side of a joint venture.
Bill - N6GHz
On 8/1/2014 9:27 AM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
> The last time I saw this site, they did list prices for 1U and 2U
> CubeSats. Wonder why they don't anymore.
>
> 73,
>
> Paul, N8HM
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:16 PM, M5AKA <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx> wrote:
>> The $295,000 for a 3U CubeSat to LEO (which presumably means a 600 km or
lower LEO) seems comparable with prices from others using proven launchers
(typically $100k for 1U).
>>
>>
>> It highlights the importance of partnering with others, such as
Educational establishments to defray costs.
>>
>> 73 Trevor M5AKA
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, 1 August 2014, 16:45, Bill Ress <bill@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Spaceflight has released it's latest pricing for launching various
>> satellite sizes and orbit. Read it and weep. Pricing continues to rise.
>>
>> http://spaceflightservices.com/pricing-plans/
>>
>> Regards...Bill - N6GHz
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 16:49:22 +0000
From: B J <va6bmj@xxxxx.xxx>
To: M5AKA <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx>
Cc: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID:
<CAP7QzkNmjmNOTOMbS-ieE1NLVkT2p0zONzjC5KoD7FfjMnpQtA@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 8/1/14, M5AKA <m5aka@xxxxx.xx.xx> wrote:
> The $295,000 for a 3U CubeSat to LEO (which presumably means a 600 km or
> lower LEO) seems comparable with prices from others using proven launchers
> (typically $100k for 1U).
>
>
> It highlights the importance of partnering with others, such as Educational
> establishments to defray costs.
>
<snip>
On the other hand, that company does have a proven launch record. By
comparison, I know of a start-up that would air launch a cubesat for a
7-figure price, but it hasn't had a flight yet. At the other end of
the scale, one group could do it for something like $60,000--but it
doesn't have a rocket ready to go, either.
Let's not forget that one gets what one pays for.
73s
Bernhard VA6BMJ @ DO33FL
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:01:23 -0500
From: John Becker <w0jab@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID: <53DBC7E3.2040502@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Can some explain to me and others the big deal about cube sats?
I just dont get it.
John
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:23:44 -0700
From: Bill Ress <bill@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID: <53DBCD20.4080308@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Well John, right now they are the cheapest to build and launch...Bill -
N6GHz
On 8/1/2014 10:01 AM, John Becker wrote:
> Can some explain to me and others the big deal about cube sats?
> I just dont get it.
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 13:24:47 -0400
From: Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@xxxx.xxx>
To: John Becker <w0jab@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID:
<CABzOSOqqKjHhsy7+QBB5PvhNdrYP3jcjbZ5PpvVZN7rghFw8vQ@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
The Wikipedia article on CubeSats
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat) has a very nice summary of why
they are the present and future of the small satellite industry:
"The CubeSat specification accomplishes several high-level goals.
Simplification of the satellite's infrastructure makes it possible to
design and produce a workable satellite at low cost. Encapsulation of
the launcher?payload interface takes away the prohibitive amount of
managerial work that would previously be required for mating a
piggyback satellite with its launcher. Unification among payloads and
launchers enables quick exchanges of payloads and utilization of
launch opportunities on short notice."
I've noticed from reading this board's current posts and archives that
there is a bias against CubeSats from some due to a belief that they
are somehow inherently limited in capability, unreliable, and short
lived, but there is nothing inherent in the CubeSat format that makes
it that way, it's simply a standardized way to build a satellite.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:01 PM, John Becker <w0jab@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Can some explain to me and others the big deal about cube sats?
> I just dont get it.
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 13:39:37 -0400
From: EMike McCardel <mccardelm@xxxxx.xxx>
To: Glen Gardner <glen.gardner@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Equatorial Crossing Data (EQX)
Message-ID: <17DA2C59-62FA-401D-B335-D9FBD2B43630@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Glen, Paul and Joseph,
Thank you for your replies. I am learning a lot here. My imagination has
been captured by learning to use the Satellabe and OscarLocator prepping for
my presentation on tracking satellites at the AMSAT Training Day during the
ARRL Centennial. I also discovered a construct involving a globe offering a
3D rendition of of a pass. This is an interesting way to demonstrate how the
earth moves independent of the orbit. I can't help but think that some of
the analogue tools of the day still have relevancy.
EMike
EMike McCardel, KC8YLD
VP for Educational Relations AMSAT-NA
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Glen Gardner <glen.gardner@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> You can easily find the times for equatorial crossing for ascending passes
from the element set.
>
>
> Consider Oscar 7
>
>
> Satellite: AO-07
> Catalog number: 07530
> Epoch time: 14211.80120610
> Element set: 27
> Inclination: 101.4754 deg
> RA of node: 192.2023 deg
> Eccentricity: 0.0011666
> Arg of perigee: 207.8798 deg
> Mean anomaly: 270.9717 deg
> Mean motion: 12.53605918 rev/day
> Decay rate: -2.2e-07 rev/day^2
> Epoch rev: 81698
> Checksum: 281
>
> The epoch time is the reference time for that element set. It also happens
to be the time for the ascending node (equatorial crossing North-to-South).
> In this case it is "14211.80120610" which comes out to the year 2014, day
211 and the hour comes out to 19.22 hours.. or approximately 19 hours, 13
minutes, 44 seconds.
>
> Ignoring the decay rate, the next ascending node will be in one orbital
period. You can get this by dividing the number of minutes in a day by the
mean motion: 1440/12.53605918=114.869 minutes after the epoch time.
>
> Getting the descending node is more problematic if the orbit is highly
eccentric. In the case of Oscar 7, the eccentricity is small, and it is
close enough to a circular orbit that it is reasonable to assert that the
descending crossing of the equator is very close to 1/2 orbital period after
the ascending node (unless your TLE's are more than a few days old).
>
> Glen
> AA8C
>
>
>
>> On 08/01/2014 03:07 AM, Paul Stoetzer wrote:
>> i8CVS posted the directions to calculate EQX and everything else
>> needed to use an OSCARLATOR from Keplerian elements back in 2003.
>>
>> http://www.amsat.org/amsat/archive/amsat-bb/200203/msg00749.html
>>
>> I haven't done any programming in forever, but maybe I'll try to write
>> a short program to automate those calculations at some point (unless
>> someone already has).
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Paul, N8HM
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:51 PM, EMike McCardel <mccardelm@xxxxx.xxx>
wrote:
>>> Does anyone know of a tracking application or program or some other
software or existing source that will still produces or publishes equatorial
crossing data for current satellites?
>>>
>>> EMike
>>>
>>> EMike McCardel, KC8YLD
>>> VP for Educational Relations AMSAT-NA
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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@xxxxx.xxx. 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
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 17:59:20 +0000
From: B J <va6bmj@xxxxx.xxx>
To: Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@xxxx.xxx>
Cc: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID:
<CAP7QzkMbne0TkP-UWJh_WTnDZtEzsLiv-2_EUBEnJeBpCob6Ug@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 8/1/14, Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
> The Wikipedia article on CubeSats
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat) has a very nice summary of why
> they are the present and future of the small satellite industry:
>
> "The CubeSat specification accomplishes several high-level goals.
> Simplification of the satellite's infrastructure makes it possible to
> design and produce a workable satellite at low cost. Encapsulation of
> the launcher?payload interface takes away the prohibitive amount of
> managerial work that would previously be required for mating a
> piggyback satellite with its launcher. Unification among payloads and
> launchers enables quick exchanges of payloads and utilization of
> launch opportunities on short notice."
>
> I've noticed from reading this board's current posts and archives that
> there is a bias against CubeSats from some due to a belief that they
> are somehow inherently limited in capability, unreliable, and short
> lived, but there is nothing inherent in the CubeSat format that makes
> it that way, it's simply a standardized way to build a satellite.
<snip>
I think part of the opposition from the amateur radio community comes
from an attitude of certain cubesat users that they have a right to
use spectrum which is specifically allocated for amateur use. All
they do is claim that they're "amateurs" (by not being affiliated with
government or industry) and the law appears to let them get away with
it. If hams have objections to it, they're told to get lost by those
same users, almost as if hams have no right to those frequencies.
Then again, what do you expect from a segment of the population that
regards amateur radio as an anachronism?
73s
Bernhard VA6BMJ @ DO33FL
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 12:59:51 -0500
From: "David Maciel (XE3DX)" <david.xe3dx@xxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Today on DL83 and DK99
Message-ID:
<CA+3j0ON6T4sUzg_hZ=mKtTUt=kq+ErMULBjwBtbFfaoW=QZfhw@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
July 29th-12th,August 2014 working on my trip the following grids:
Only Work on SO-50 SAT (FT-60R 5 watts & Arrow Antenna)
( EL00, DL90,DL91,DL92,DL81,DL82,DL83,DK99 AND DK89 )
All my QSO `s are uploaded to LoTW
all notices from my twitter account @ xe3dx
David Maciel XE3DX
*http://www.qsl.net/xe3dx/ <http://www.qsl.net/xe3dx/>*
*xe3dx@xxxxx.xxx <http://mc/compose?to=xe3dx@xxxxx.xxx>*
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 14:09:35 -0400
From: Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@xxxx.xxx>
To: B J <va6bmj@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Current Launch Costs From Spaceflight
Message-ID:
<CABzOSOq4D=fw60eow3M2-NdBgrspoqwigxYVvjXUwJigU9_DhQ@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
True. That is a problem, though it's certainly a separate issue from
the design and construction of the satellite.
The best the amateur satellite community can do is cultivate
relationships with those who wish to use our frequencies and hopefully
receive some benefit. For example, several CubeSats have been launched
using the ISIS TRXUV Transceiver as their communication system. That
transceiver has the capability of being used in loopback mode that
provides an FM-to-DSB single channel transponder. Perhaps if we ask
nicely, we can get use of one or two of those when the organization
that built and launched them are done with them.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:59 PM, B J <va6bmj@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> On 8/1/14, Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
>> The Wikipedia article on CubeSats
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat) has a very nice summary of why
>> they are the present and future of the small satellite industry:
>>
>> "The CubeSat specification accomplishes several high-level goals.
>> Simplification of the satellite's infrastructure makes it possible to
>> design and produce a workable satellite at low cost. Encapsulation of
>> the launcher?payload interface takes away the prohibitive amount of
>> managerial work that would previously be required for mating a
>> piggyback satellite with its launcher. Unification among payloads and
>> launchers enables quick exchanges of payloads and utilization of
>> launch opportunities on short notice."
>>
>> I've noticed from reading this board's current posts and archives that
>> there is a bias against CubeSats from some due to a belief that they
>> are somehow inherently limited in capability, unreliable, and short
>> lived, but there is nothing inherent in the CubeSat format that makes
>> it that way, it's simply a standardized way to build a satellite.
>
> <snip>
>
> I think part of the opposition from the amateur radio community comes
> from an attitude of certain cubesat users that they have a right to
> use spectrum which is specifically allocated for amateur use. All
> they do is claim that they're "amateurs" (by not being affiliated with
> government or industry) and the law appears to let them get away with
> it. If hams have objections to it, they're told to get lost by those
> same users, almost as if hams have no right to those frequencies.
>
> Then again, what do you expect from a segment of the population that
> regards amateur radio as an anachronism?
>
> 73s
>
> Bernhard VA6BMJ @ DO33FL
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:20:50 -0700
From: Larry Ryan <llryan807@xxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] SatPC32 with dual radios
Message-ID:
<CAK9b=digM0pgc8eyi=40EOc07qZ5PnmLucVB+72ESD3J=-vBJw@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I am trying to set up SatPC32 ver 12.8c "unregistered" with two FT-817s. My
problem is that there is no CAT control on radio 1. Radio 2 works
perfectly. Here is the setup:
Radio 1, com port 2, delay 70 (tried 110 also)
Radio 2, com port 5
Checked Atom. RX/TX change only (no other boxes checked but tried the
others)
As I change from sat to sat, Radio 2 will change freq and be steered but
there is no response from Radio 1
If I remove Radio 2 (unplug the USB cable) and configure only a radio 1,
there is no CAT control of radio 1.
Computer is an HP Mini running Win7
Watching Device Manager, I can unplug either USB cable and see port 2 or
port 5 come and go as I plug and unplug.
I have switched radios then switched the CAT USB cables (they are FTDI).
Still radio 1 does not change.
Leaving the radios plugged in to the same computer, I exited SatPC32 and
started HRD and tested for CAT operation on each radio one at a time and
they both work.
My question: Why no CAT for radio 1? Why no error message? Are there any
other troubleshooting steps I can take?
I have searched just about everywhere on-line and see no one else having
this problem. I have found that many have success with the dual non-duplex
transceivers configuration.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks, Larry W7DGP
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 9, Issue 266
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
