[amsat-bb] Re: [fieldops] Re: Re: ISS a Satellite or an airplane?
Prof. H. Paul Shuch
drseti at verizon.net
Sun Sep 16 04:36:41 PDT 2007
Ed Cole wrote:
>>an ETDXCC would evolve. Of course this already exists as
an award from the SETI-League.
Thanks for the plug, Ed. For those not familiar with ETCC, see www.setileague.org/awards/etcc.htm.
73 from Berlin,
H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., Chief Engineer
Microcomm Consulting +1 (570) 494-2299
121 Florence Drive, Cogan Station PA 17728
paul at microcomm.net http://microcomm.net
This document may contain proprietary information, intellectual property, trade names, and logos which may be confidential to Microcomm Consulting. Dissemination for any purpose of any part of the data contained herein without specific prior written authorization from Microcomm Consulting is hereby prohibited.
From: Edward Cole <kl7uw at acsalaska.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 03:28:07
To:"Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR]" <kenneth.g.ransom at nasa.gov>,"John P. Toscano" <tosca005 at tc.umn.edu>
Cc:fieldops at amsat.org, amsat-bb at amsat.org
Subject: [fieldops] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: ISS a Satellite or an airplane?
At 10:11 AM 9/15/2007, Ransom, Kenneth G. (JSC-OC)[BAR] wrote:
>We have this sort of discussion every year before field day. ARRL
>permits contacts VIA the ISS for credit as a satellite but does not
>count contacts TO the ISS crew for credit (though many are made just for fun).
>Since the ISS is a unique situation (currently being the only manned
>satellite with amateur radio gear), the ARRL has some conflicting
>rules to deal with. It is a satellite so contacts via it should be
>legitimate. It is a manned craft not in contact with the Earth so it
>does not count for contacts just like an aeronautical mobile contact
>does not count.
>I personally do not think having the ISS declared a DXCC entity is a
>good idea. The crew would be overwhelmed when on and the ISS is not
>a permanent installation.
>On the other hand, what do you think the ARRL will do with manned
>amateur radio locations on the moon?
>Kenneth - N5VHO
In my opinion astronaut contacts at ISS should be regarded as
satellite contacts. But then ISS and shuttle contacts are so unique
they deserve their own recognition and a QSL from them is certainly
one. I suppose a WWAS (worked all space shuttles) or WAA (worked all
astronauts) might be considered? But we already had a space-race so
do not need to repeat that with ham contacts :-)
Regarding Moon contacts I would suppose the Moon would be set up with
grids like earth, so each grid would suffice (exploration of the
lunar landscape will probably dictate some demarcation scheme). I
would guess that off-world radio contacts would not be included into
the DXCC for the same reason as ISS. But as the Moon and planets are
populated an ETDXCC would evolve. Of course this already exists as
an award from the SETI-League.
Ed - KL7UW
BP40IQ 50-MHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com
144-EME: FT-847, mgf-1801, 4x-xpol-20, 185w
DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa at hotmail.com
Fieldops mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
Fieldops at amsat.org
More information about the AMSAT-BB