[amsat-bb] Re: Data on Eagle [was: A emergency use for Eagle's digitalside]

Eric H Christensen kf4otn at ericsatcom.net
Mon Sep 18 13:18:32 PDT 2006

The more I think about the possibilities the more I like this project
(not speaking about bands but about the data).  I agree, more bandwidth
is needed but you have to start somewhere.  Eagle could be a start to a
larger project that would provide more bandwidth using TCP/IP.

256kbps isn't all that slow, though.  I wouldn't go surfing any large
websites but you could easily setup e-mail (Winlink?) to use that
bandwidth efficiently (4 times faster than the fastest dial-up).  In the
event of an emergency one could easily setup a small LAN and share that
connection out to multiple computers.  Again, not fast but faster than
what you had.

I think there was an option to have more bandwidth with a larger dish
but I don't have the latest Eagle paperwork in front of me to see.  All
we would need would be some providers for network connectivity (read
that Internet connectivity) and we could have remote Internet
connectivity for those that are out on DXpeditions or are out on the
high seas or those that are mobile or those that are snowed in would all
have Internet access plus have access to real live people.

Just a thought out loud, though.  Not sure if Eagle will be able to do
anything I've just written about but it does sound promising.

So to the Eagle staff, are we talking TCP/IP data on the digital side???
 Is any of this stuff possible?


Marc Vermeersch wrote:
> Hi Luc, All,
> Interference
> ------------
> 802.11b/g (2.4 GHz, WiFi) is channelized in the 2412-2484Mc range which is a
> clear overlap with the HAM frequencies (2300-2450Mc in ON).
> 802.11a (5GHz) is channelized in the 5170-5320Mc range. This is not
> overlapping the 5650-5850Mc range assigned to us HAMS (again in ON). There
> is 330Mc separation between the highest allowed 802.11a channel and the
> lowest HAM frequency.
> It appears to me that 5Ghz is the better option based on this separation.
> Has any work been done on verifying interference on 5GHz?
> Emergency Use
> -------------
> As mentioned, IP is the way to go. But I'm struggling with the concept of
> using an amateur satellite for emergency digital communications of anything
> but the smallest magnitude. What is needed is 1.) high bandwidth, 2.) all
> the time, 3) in several/many locations.  
>>From experience I can tell that the commercial competition (so to speak) is
> able to deploy fully equipped ground stations with Mbps capacity within
> hours/days depending on the location. Those include power generation too.
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org] On
> |Behalf Of Luc Leblanc VE2DWE
> |Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 05:33
> |To: AMSAT-BB at amsat.org
> |Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: HEO QRP [was: A emergency use for Eagle's
> |digitalside]
> |
> |On 15 Sep 2006 at 16:18, John Mock KD6PAG wrote:
> |
> |
> |>
> |> I've worked AO-40 near apogee QRP using a phased pair of homebrew quagis.
> |> You just need to work out your power budget and see how much antenna you
> |> need to get enough ERP.
> |>
> |I'm glad to hear that but on the downlink did you ever suffer from any
> |interference from 2.4ghz
> |devices? That is the whole question at the beginning of this thread.
> |
> |It seems for some when all theses goodies are migrating up to 5.8ghz they
> |choose to cancelled
> |2.4ghz on the downlink to put it on 5.8ghz for Eagle? Put it this way it
> |seems oversimplistic but
> |under the sun of San Diego a sudden light shine coming from probably
> |Tijuana where Tequilla is
> |cheaper than a bottle of coke...
> |
> |To be on 2.4 or not to be on 2.4 that is the question!
> |
> |P.S.(I don't drink coke there is too much sugar in it and it's make me too
> |fat)
> |
> |
> |
> |"-"
> |The medium is the message...The content is the audience...;)
> |
> |Luc Leblanc VE2DWE
> |WAC basic,CW,Phone,Satellite
> |Skype VE2DWE
> |www.qsl.net/ve2dwe
> |_______________________________________________
> |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
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the AMSAT-BB mailing list