[amsat-bb] Re: P3E transponder and launch
N2OEQ at aceweb.com
Sun Mar 25 08:39:50 PST 2007
Hello robert- thank you for a very well written explanation of the SDX system. I understand it better now.
I'm still of the opinion that the satellites should be kept as simple as possible to increase reliability and life but I also believe in democracy and it sounds like it works well here. I dont agree with your "outdated" label of the old technology. Then again, I dont buy a new car every 5 years. Oscar 7 is a good example of the ruggedness of the old technology.
You're a very good tech writer, thanks for taking the time to explain, pat n2oeq
------- Original Message -------
>From : Robert McGwier[mailto:rwmcgwier at gmail.com]
Sent : 3/24/2007 11:54:26 AM
To : vk3jed at gmail.com
Cc : k8ocl at arrl.net; Patrick.McGrane at aceweb.com; amsat-bb at amsat.org
Subject : RE: [amsat-bb] Re: P3E transponder and launch
Thanks to everyone for the comments, concerns, and thoughtful remarks.
SDX is no magic bullet. It cannot perform any better than the analog
hardware around it and our careful work on doing the mixed signal work
and even more careful work to make sure it survives the rigors of
traveling through Van Allan radiation belts four times a day!
That said, it provides us with several things. The DESIGN of the SDX
will allow us to use a high dynamic range receiver in comparison to
those we have flown before and to actually realize the potential
presented to us by this receiver.
If we have this high dynamic range receiver, we can use a much lower
noise floor and wider dynamic range transmitter to provide cleaner
signals. This will be evidenced, if we do it right, by us no longer
hearing the noise floor of the transponder. Next, if we have
sufficient DSP horse power, we will be able to mitigate PAVE PAWS pulses
by doing pulse detection and subtraction. THIS IS A LINEAR OPERATION.
It will be much nicer than clipping. If the pulses get so large that we
are clipping then all bets are off but with an 80 dB dynamic range
receiver, this will be much less likely to happen. Stephensen has done
a detailed analysis of this and this is available on Eaglepedia.
Next we are designing in the ability to provide the most capable HELAPS
we have ever done. HELAPS is high efficiency linear amplification by
parametric synthesis. Technical papers by Karl are on both the AMSAT
and AMSAT-DL web sites. It is envelope elimination and restoration
amplification. It allows us to use very high efficiency nonlinear
amplifiers in the transmit chain and then have the "envelope" of the
hard limited signals from the transponder imposed on the signal just
before it hits the antenna by modulating the voltage on the last or last
few stages. If we do the final transistors and the driver, we can get
VERY high efficiency compared to what we have achieved in the past
WITHOUT all of the poor IMD we lived with to get the efficiency. SDX is
THE enabler in this.
SDX provides us with the ability to easily find all alligators and
impose our will on them. There will simply be no benefit to running an
EIRP that is larger than we decide to allow because YOUR INDIVIDUAL
signal will be suppressed!
Juan Rivera, WA6HTP, and his team are building the fancy receiver which
has been designed by KD6OZH and peer reviewed to death by others. Parts
are being purchased NOW and the goal is to have four soon. We are
building at least one to fit the P3E box shape.
Marc Franco, N2UO, has designed, using modern parts that are very
difficult to get without connections, a serious 2 meter final stage.
It will provide the highest efficiency 2 meter transmitter we have ever
flown for HELAPS.
Steve Hendricksen, a TCNJ engineering student, design a S band
amplifier in a senior engineering project directed study for Marc, Al
Katz (K2UYH), and I. He submitted this for competition in an amplifier
efficiency contest. He received an honorable mention and came in very
high in the rankings. However, his amplifier was the only one well in
excess of the minimum power, at 2.4 GHz rather than 1.0 GHz (the
As always there is the balance between "new with great promise but
untried" and "the old, standard but somewhat outdated". We can have
this argument all year and it will never be easily resolved.
AMSAT-UK has agreed to provide SDX software working with P3E and Eagle
teams. They have agreed to copy the AO-13 RF if none of these fancier
elements shows up and works. AMSAT-DL is planning for these contingencies.
So we have arranged for a small trial: Suisat-2 will carry a low power
SDX with a few of these capabilities. We are planning a very large
AMSAT engineering activity for this coming summer which you will hear
more about in the coming weeks.
I could go on but what I want to promise is this: I have been extremely
busy both professionally, personally, and with AMSAT things and I have
not done an Engineering Notebook in a while. I will do a detailed paper
on this for the next journal and it will be in my engineering notebook.
Following publication I will put the document with more backing
material on Eaglepeda as well and give it to AMSAT-DL for both our sites.
Tony Langdon wrote:
> At 10:46 AM 3/24/2007, John Champa wrote:
>> The reports I have seen is that the SDX sounded BETTER than the
>> traditional analog transponder. Bob, N4HY, can confirm that fact?
> I wouldn't be surprised at this one at all.
>> Anything other than SDX would be a step-backward for AMSAT.
> That's my viewpoint as well.
> 73 de VK3JED
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"Taking fun as simply fun and earnestness in earnest shows
how thoroughly thou none of the two discernest." - Piet Hine
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