| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 30.04.17 01:45l 763 Lines 26851 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB12116
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V12 116
Path: IW8PGT<CX2SA
Sent: 170429/2340Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM #:6060 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB12116
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers (Dave Mann)
2. Re: Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers (John Brier)
3. Re: Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers (Paul Stoetzer)
4. Re: Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers (James Duffey)
5. Re: Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers (Dave Mann)
6. Re: Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers (David G0MRF)
7. TS2000 Cat cable (ingejack@xxx.xxxx
8. Re: Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers (EC4TR Luis)
9. Re: TS2000 Cat cable (Mike Thompson)
10. TS2000 cat cable (ingejack@xxx.xxxx
11. Re: Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers (GEO Badger)
12. Re: TS2000 cat cable (Jeff Moore)
13. Satellite transceivers (jeffory broughton)
14. Re: Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers (Bruce)
15. Upcoming ARISS Contact Schedule as of 2017-04-29 23:00 UTC
(AJ9N@xxx.xxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 09:50:19 -0500
From: Dave Mann <cwo4mann@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers
Message-ID: <A85B75B8-16B2-4DEF-9D90-710BA1871AA1@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Please help me out with critical comments about receiver sensitivity
vis-a-vis the venerable FT-736R and latest 2-m/70-cm all-mode transceivers
best suited for AMSAT work.
Thanks in advance,
Dave N4CVX
Sent from my iPad
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:54:06 -0400
From: John Brier <johnbrier@xxxxx.xxx>
To: Dave Mann <cwo4mann@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: AMSAT BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers
Message-ID:
<CALn0fKNsu2boQOGhm1pP57_RuSngfLrPKt0Fcjig5GotLy1CEg@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Please share on list because I am curious as well.
73, John Brier KG4AKV
On Apr 29, 2017 10:50 AM, "Dave Mann" <cwo4mann@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Please help me out with critical comments about receiver sensitivity
> vis-a-vis the venerable FT-736R and latest 2-m/70-cm all-mode transceivers
> best suited for AMSAT work.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Dave N4CVX
>
> Sent from my iPad
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
> expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
> AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:54:13 -0400
From: Paul Stoetzer <n8hm@xxxx.xxx>
To: Dave Mann <cwo4mann@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers
Message-ID:
<CABzOSOo_m3HYDzSQ0+-1R2BvOUYsScrx=_FFMwe7S-DfnVEqfQ@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>From everything I've read, the 736R has a fine receiver. The only
issue with using it with satellites today is if you want to use
computer control, the CAT port is unidirectional. You can send
frequency updates to it, but not read the frequency data from the
radio. The limitation that introduces is you can't use the tuning knob
to tune around the passband, you'll have to use the controls in
SatPC32 (or other software).
73,
Paul, N8HM
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Dave Mann <cwo4mann@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Please help me out with critical comments about receiver sensitivity
vis-a-vis the venerable FT-736R and latest 2-m/70-cm all-mode transceivers
best suited for AMSAT work.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Dave N4CVX
>
> Sent from my iPad
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 09:09:24 -0600
From: James Duffey <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Dave Mann <cwo4mann@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers
Message-ID: <A649495D-EB81-45D0-818F-4F51ABBA68F3@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
A look through the ARRL product reviews should tell you what you need to
know in an objective fashion.
Having said that, sensitivity is probably not the best parameter on which to
judge a potential transceiver. Poor sensitivity can be cured with a preamp.
Not so poor strong signal handling performance or ergonomics.
I have a TS2000X, which is only mediocre in sensitivity and strong signal
handling capability, but has good ergonomics. It is useful as an HF backup
rig and I use it for VHF/UHF roving, at which it excels. It also has a 1296
option. With an outside antenna the notorious birdie is not a problem.
All of the all-mode VHF transceivers have their pluses and minuses. Some are
more show stoppers than others. These kinds of rigs are compromises and once
one decides on what compromises one can make, selection is easier. The
highest performance option, a pair (or more) of transverters, can be a task
to integrate, is expensive, has primitive ergonomics, and requires two IF
transceivers for satellite work.
Let us know what you decide. ? Duffey KK6MC
On Apr 29, 2017, at 8:50 AM, Dave Mann <cwo4mann@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Please help me out with critical comments about receiver sensitivity
vis-a-vis the venerable FT-736R and latest 2-m/70-cm all-mode transceivers
best suited for AMSAT work.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Dave N4CVX
>
> Sent from my iPad
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:30:20 -0500
From: Dave Mann <cwo4mann@xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers
Message-ID: <B47CB467-B941-424D-BF35-6CE53DE6EC45@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Good info! Many thanks. Every so often I go through an evolution saying to
myself and XYL, "maybe I need a 'better rig' ....". I went through that
when I sold my HW-100 ? about 50 years ago.
I've learned from good advice like that received here to stick with what
works best. My two optimized Kenwood TS-830's are good examples of that.
Yes the FT-736R has limitations on the CAT instruction set and interfacing.
However, by using TRX-Manager, PSTRotator and gPredict in concert everything
is working out so far - for sure, my 27" monitor keeps everything in view.
Best 73
Dave N4CVX
Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 29, 2017, at 10:09, James Duffey <jamesduffey@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> A look through the ARRL product reviews should tell you what you need to
know in an objective fashion.
>
> Having said that, sensitivity is probably not the best parameter on which
to judge a potential transceiver. Poor sensitivity can be cured with a
preamp. Not so poor strong signal handling performance or ergonomics.
>
> I have a TS2000X, which is only mediocre in sensitivity and strong signal
handling capability, but has good ergonomics. It is useful as an HF backup
rig and I use it for VHF/UHF roving, at which it excels. It also has a 1296
option. With an outside antenna the notorious birdie is not a problem.
>
> All of the all-mode VHF transceivers have their pluses and minuses. Some
are more show stoppers than others. These kinds of rigs are compromises and
once one decides on what compromises one can make, selection is easier. The
highest performance option, a pair (or more) of transverters, can be a task
to integrate, is expensive, has primitive ergonomics, and requires two IF
transceivers for satellite work.
>
> Let us know what you decide. ? Duffey KK6MC
>
>
>
>
>> On Apr 29, 2017, at 8:50 AM, Dave Mann <cwo4mann@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>>
>> Please help me out with critical comments about receiver sensitivity
vis-a-vis the venerable FT-736R and latest 2-m/70-cm all-mode transceivers
best suited for AMSAT work.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Dave N4CVX
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
Opinions expressed
>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
>> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 12:08:26 -0400
From: David G0MRF <g0mrf@xxx.xxx>
To: cwo4mann@xxxxxxx.xxxx amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers
Message-ID: <15bba786dce-4d8d-dd28@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hi Dave.
The FT736R receiver sensitivity is limited by its noise figure, which is
about 4 or 5dB at best.
By the time you add on a little coax loss you have a receiver which
struggles to compete with modern sets.
However, having said that the radio is loved by many as a simple receive
(masthead) preamp powered directly from the radio can transform its
sensitivity. It is still used by many for EME
Contesters also like this radio but frequently replace the internal LNA and
mixer with one produced by Mutek.
www.ssbusa.com/mutek.html
I have one here and still use it. No front end replacement, but a masthead
preamp does work wonders.
73
David G0MRF
Please help me out with critical comments about receiver sensitivity
vis-a-vis the venerable FT-736R and latest 2-m/70-cm all-mode transceivers
best suited for AMSAT work.
Thanks in advance,
Dave N4CVX
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:34:44 -0700
From: <ingejack@xxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] TS2000 Cat cable
Message-ID: <20170429133444.NRG7P.50050.imail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
think I am in the process of purchasing a TS2000. What Cat cable do I need
to run SATPC32 ?? Thanks for any help !! JACK-KC7MG
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 19:50:13 +0200
From: EC4TR Luis <ec4tr.luis@xxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers
Message-ID: <f6ecde10-7040-21aa-e278-f65431e519fe@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Hi all
I owned both 736 and a 910 for several months, I made exhaustive tests
during VHF/UHF contest and always gave a better result on 910.
My two cents.
73 Luis
EC4TR
El 29/04/2017 a las 18:08, David G0MRF via AMSAT-BB escribi?:
> Hi Dave.
>
> The FT736R receiver sensitivity is limited by its noise figure, which is
about 4 or 5dB at best.
> By the time you add on a little coax loss you have a receiver which
struggles to compete with modern sets.
>
> However, having said that the radio is loved by many as a simple receive
(masthead) preamp powered directly from the radio can transform its
sensitivity. It is still used by many for EME
> Contesters also like this radio but frequently replace the internal LNA
and mixer with one produced by Mutek.
>
> www.ssbusa.com/mutek.html
>
> I have one here and still use it. No front end replacement, but a masthead
preamp does work wonders.
>
> 73
> David G0MRF
>
>
> Please help me out with critical comments about receiver sensitivity
vis-a-vis the venerable FT-736R and latest 2-m/70-cm all-mode transceivers
best suited for AMSAT work.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Dave N4CVX
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:07:34 -0500
From: Mike Thompson <zryder94@xxxxx.xxx>
To: ingejack@xxx.xxx
Cc: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] TS2000 Cat cable
Message-ID:
<CAGD5MUE-sg=67-O74aYwHW7mqmPaEN5kxO18hQdTS4Bq+rsQKQ@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Straight serial cable will do the trick if you have a serial port on the
back of your PC. Otherwise any USB-Serial adapter will work fine.
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 12:34 PM, <ingejack@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> think I am in the process of purchasing a TS2000. What Cat cable do I
> need to run SATPC32 ?? Thanks for any help !! JACK-KC7MG
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
> expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
> AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 11:12:33 -0700
From: <ingejack@xxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] TS2000 cat cable
Message-ID: <20170429141233.OGOWT.50266.imail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Thanks for all the help. I now know which cable to use for SATPC32 and a
TS2000 73 JACK KC7MG
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:33:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: GEO Badger <w3ab@xxxxx.xxx>
To: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers
Message-ID: <784039033.401606.1493487194739@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I had a 736R and used it well. But I was unable to find a 6M module for it.
I went to a new QTH, purchased a 756PRO, so I had 6M, and decided I wanted
an upgrade so I purchased an IC-810H. A great radio but then I decided I
might want to do 1200 MHz, so the 910H came into my life. It has newer bells
& whistles, some I appreciate, but I am in a low noise area, well it used to
be but many of the homes are now emitters, and the 736R would have worked
well. Probably not now.
If I had infinite bench space, a 736R would be in the shack.?---?
Ciao baby, catch you on the flip side. ??
GEO ???
http://www.w3ab.org
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
From: David G0MRF via AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
To: cwo4mann@xxxxxxx.xxxx amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers
Hi Dave.
The FT736R receiver sensitivity is limited by its noise figure, which is
about 4 or 5dB at best.
By the time you add on a little coax loss you have a receiver which
struggles to compete with modern sets.
However, having said that the radio is loved by many as a simple receive
(masthead) preamp powered directly from the radio can transform its
sensitivity. It is still used by many for EME
Contesters also like this radio but frequently replace the internal LNA and
mixer with one produced by Mutek.
www.ssbusa.com/mutek.html
I have one here and still use it. No front end replacement, but a masthead
preamp does work wonders.
73
David? G0MRF
Please help me out with critical comments about receiver sensitivity
vis-a-vis the venerable FT-736R and latest 2-m/70-cm all-mode transceivers
best suited for AMSAT work.
Thanks in advance,
Dave N4CVX
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
expressed
are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 12:54:31 -0700
From: Jeff Moore <tnetcenter@xxxxx.xxx>
To: Amsat BB <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] TS2000 cat cable
Message-ID:
<CALx_moT0CqtLmLN7KGBFGk+yGYYgRBVe5Mp0N_0m0SKaCeEJDQ@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Are you gonna share the good news with the rest of us?? What did you
decide on??
7 3
Jeff Moore -- KE7ACY
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 11:12 AM, <ingejack@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> Thanks for all the help. I now know which cable to use for SATPC32 and a
> TS2000 73 JACK KC7MG
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
> expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
> AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 16:21:14 -0400
From: jeffory broughton <jefforybroughton@xxxxx.xxx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Satellite transceivers
Message-ID:
<CACm2je0ffbvDWA__NiPEqPDNxs9+a6Mwm08brv2vcHxtpnrprA@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
It's tough to beat the air 910 for receiver sensitivity and noise figure.
It uses Gaasfets for the rf amps on both bands.I have two of them at both
my primary and secondary qth.They both check at .12 uv on uhf and .11 uv on
vhf for 20 db.That is state of the art stuff.If you compare the specs on
the ic 910H and the new 9100 on vhf and uhf you will find them to be
identical.WB8RJY
jeff broughton
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 18:28:34 -0500
From: Bruce <kk5do@xxxx.xxx>
To: "amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Yaesu FT-736R versus newer transceivers
Message-ID: <4dc39bf3-a8f5-51df-c9d8-c202658d1679@xxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
The Yaesu 736R was my first satellite radio in 1993. Bought it new. I
must have had a lemon as it lost the finals twice. Went back to the
factory the first time, got it back and plugged in. Before I even had a
chance to enter any frequency on the dial, there was smoke coming out of
the top of the radio. Back it when to Yaesu. Yaesu took it back,
refunded my money and I bought the Icom (I think 710) on the market back
then. Forget the model number, but it was a huge radio.
Anyhow... one of the problems I found with the 736R was the power meter.
It did not represent anything other than the position of the knob.
Instead of indicating what was going out the back door, the meter showed
where the knob was positioned. I had the radio out at field day the very
first time in 1993 after using it at home for several months and we
could not make one contact. I knew how to operate the satellites and
knew what I was doing. After an evening of trying, we hooked an SWR
meter to the output and found there was nothing going out even though
the power meter consistently showed anywhere from full power to low
power as the power knob was turned. That is when I sent the radio in the
first time.
I did not like that design for the power meter. Have no idea if other
manufacturer's do the same thing but it is kinda dumb although easier
than measuring the output power.
I have known many hams that have used the 736R and still use it and have
no problems. Just my experience.
73...bruce
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 19:38:43 -0400
From: AJ9N@xxx.xxx
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Upcoming ARISS Contact Schedule as of 2017-04-29
23:00 UTC
Message-ID: <30cde.1cf9a34.46367e03@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Upcoming ARISS Contact Schedule as of 2017-04-29 23:00 UTC
Quick list of scheduled contacts and events:
Lyc?e H?l?ne Boucher, Thionville, France, direct via F8KGY
The ISS callsign is presently scheduled to be FX?ISS
The scheduled astronaut is Thomas Pesquet KG5FYG
Contact was successful: Thu 2017-04-27 08:52:17 UTC 83 deg (***)
Orel, Russia, direct via TBD
The ISS callsign is presently scheduled to be RS?ISS
The scheduled astronaut is Oleg Novitskiy
Contact was successful: Sat 2017-04-29 06:05 UTC (***)
14th Elementary School Katerini, Greece, direct via SX2ISS
The ISS callsign is presently scheduled to be RS?ISS
The scheduled astronaut is Fyodor Yurchikhin RN3FI
Contact was successful: Sat 2017-04-29 12:02:10 UTC 69 deg (***)
***************
***************************************************************
ARISS is always glad to receive listener reports for the above contacts.
ARISS thanks everyone in advance for their assistance. Feel free to send
your reports to aj9n@xxxxx.xxx or aj9n@xxx.xxx.
****************************************************************************
***
ARISS is always glad to receive listener reports for the above contacts.
ARISS thanks everyone in advance for their assistance. Feel free to send
your reports to aj9n@xxxxx.xxx or aj9n@xxx.xxx.
Listen for the ISS on the downlink of 145.8? MHz.
****************************************************************************
***
All ARISS contacts are made via the Kenwood radio unless otherwise noted.
****************************************************************************
***
Several of you have sent me emails asking about the RAC ARISS website and
not being able to get in. That has now been changed to
http://www.ariss.org/
Note that there are links to other ARISS websites from this site.
****************************************************************************
Looking for something new to do? How about receiving DATV from the ISS?
If interested, then please go to the ARISS-EU website for complete
details. Look for the buttons indicating Ham Video.
http://www.ariss-eu.org/
If you need some assistance, ARISS mentor Kerry N6IZW, might be able to
provide some insight. Contact Kerry at kbanke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
****************************************************************************
ARISS congratulations the following mentors who have now mentored over 100
schools:
Satoshi 7M3TJZ with 123
Gaston ON4WF with 123
Francesco IK?WGF with 119
****************************************************************************
The webpages listed below were all reviewed for accuracy. Out of date
webpages were removed and new ones have been added. If there are
additional
ARISS websites I need to know about, please let me know.
Note, all times are approximate. It is recommended that you do your own
orbital prediction or start listening about 10 minutes before the listed
time.
All dates and times listed follow International Standard ISO 8601 date and
time format YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS
The complete schedule page has been updated as of 2017-04-29 23:00 UTC.
(***)
Here you will find a listing of all scheduled school contacts, and
questions, other ISS related websites, IRLP and Echolink websites, and
instructions for any contact that may be streamed live.
http://www.amsat.org/amsat/ariss/news/arissnews.rtf
http://www.amsat.org/amsat/ariss/news/arissnews.txt
Total number of ARISS ISS to earth school events is 1134. (***)
Each school counts as 1 event.
Total number of ARISS ISS to earth school contacts is 1095. (***)
Each contact may have multiple schools sharing the same time slot.
Total number of ARISS supported terrestrial contacts is 47.
A complete year by year breakdown of the contacts may be found in the
file.
http://www.amsat.org/amsat/ariss/news/arissnews.rtf
Please feel free to contact me if more detailed statistics are needed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The following US states and entities have never had an ARISS contact:
Arkansas, Delaware, South Dakota, Wyoming, American Samoa, Guam, Northern
Marianas Islands, and the Virgin Islands.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
QSL information may be found at:
http://www.ariss.org/qsl-cards.html
ISS callsigns: DP?ISS, IR?ISS, NA1SS, OR4ISS, RS?ISS
****************************************************************************
The successful school list has been updated as of 2017-04-29 23:00 UTC.
(***)
http://www.amsat.org/amsat/ariss/news/Successful_ARISS_schools.rtf
Frequency chart for packet, voice, and crossband repeater modes showing
Doppler correction as of 2005-07-29 04:00 UTC
http://www.amsat.org/amsat/ariss/news/ISS_frequencies_and_Doppler_correction
.rtf
Listing of ARISS related magazine articles as of 2006-07-10 03:30 UTC.
http://www.amsat.org/amsat/ariss/news/ARISS_magazine_articles.rtf
Check out the Zoho reports of the ARISS contacts
https://reports.zoho.com/ZDBDataSheetView.cc?DBID=412218000000020415
****************************************************************************
Exp. 49 on orbit
Shane Kimbrough KE5HOD
Andrei Borisenko
Sergey Ryzhikov
Exp. 50 on orbit
Peggy Whitson
Thomas Pesquet KG5FYG
Oleg Novitskiy
****************************************************************************
73,
Charlie Sufana AJ9N
One of the ARISS operation team mentors
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx.
AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide
without requiring membership. Opinions expressed
are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 12, Issue 116
*****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
