[amsat-bb] Re: WB9L cross-satellite again

n3tl@bellsouth.net n3tl at bellsouth.net
Sun Oct 19 15:49:27 PDT 2008

Hey Folks,

With no intent to be disrespectful, I have to disagree with Mr. Estes' statement that what I have done a total of three times with two different stations should not be considered valid satellite contacts.

I looked up the word valid, and list here the first two definitions of that word because they are the most germaine to this discussion:

1.sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason. 
2.producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom. 

I'm confident that there are many divergent perspectives on whether these contacts, which involved both AO-51 and AO-16, were sound, just and/or well-founded. However, I have a recording - mentioned in an earlier post today - that proves unequivocably that what happened produced the desired result (the stations involved were on the satellites with the intent of contacting other stations, which they did) and was effective (each station acknowledged the other and exchanged information - no different than had only one satellite been involved).

I suppose that the most accurate term to use is that they were dual-band (2 meters and 70cm), dual-mode (FM and SSB), dual-satellite contacts because both satellites had to come into play for the contacts to be completed.

73 to all,

Tim - N3TL
AMSAT Member No. 36820
Athens, Ga. - EM84ha
-------------- Original message from Wayne Estes <w9ae at charter.net>: -------------- 

> Jeff WB2SYK wrote: 
> How about "an inadvertent QSO'?? 
> Wayne W9AE replies: 
> Kind of like when RS-12 was in Mode K (15m up, 10m down). It was common 
> to hear a CQ where it was obvious that the station calling CQ didn't 
> know his 15m transmit signal was being repeated by RS-12. I would 
> answer the CQ and inform the other guy that I'm hearing him on the 10m 
> downlink of a satellite. The other station, of course, was listening to 
> my 15m signal, not the satellite's 10m downlink. 
> I don't know what you would call this, but it's not a valid 2-way 
> satellite contact or a valid 2-way HF contact. 
> Wayne Estes W9AE 
> Oakland, Oregon, USA, CN83ik 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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