[amsat-bb] Re: The Moon is our Future
kd8bxp at aol.com
Thu Jul 2 09:23:59 PDT 2009
I understand completely how EME works, and understand the losses - I am even in favor of putting a repeater up on the moon if a way could be found to do it -
Someone in the group and had something about a man would have to roll out a large antenna - since I believe that no man has ever set foot on the moon I find it hard to believe that a man will ever roll out an antenna
IMHO a robotic device of some kind would be better suited to doing it - but then you have the cost factor weighting in
I just don't think any man or woman for that matter will ever walk on the moon or ever has
Yes I am a very skepical person, and I am wrapped in a lot of contridictions in my own right
- most of my skepicalism does lie in and around Nasa and the space program as a whole -
And again this is just my opion. We as a whole nation spend billions on a space program - as get very little in return. We keep servicing an ageing fleet of shuttles and nothing really new is coming from the minds of Nasa. I am skepical and a nonbelieve when it comes to the moon.
But I do agree talking about it and some of the ideas on how to over come the losses and power requires maybe the only way anything ever will happen
Sent on the Now Network from my SprintÂ® BlackBerry
From: tosca005 at umn.edu
Date: 02 Jul 2009 10:52:11
To: <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Moon is our Future
On Jul 2 2009, kd8bxp at aol.com wrote:
> Don't want to get a whole new thing started here but - I don't think we
> ever went to the moon in 1969 and I don't think we will ever goto the
> moon - in 2012 or whenever they proposed a "return" to the moon
With that level of disbelief I can certainly see why you are predisposed to
discount the possibility of a moon-based transponder.
> I would love to see an amatuer repeater on the moon thou - from my
> understanding EME is expensive to do, so I think it would leave most of
> us out
Not necessarily. Remember, with conventional EME, you send as large a
signal as you can muster towards the moon, incur huge path losses along the
way, then incur a huge loss because the moon is a very imperfect reflector
of RF energy, then incur the huge path loss back from moon to earth.
With a moon-based repeater, you send as large a signal as you can muster
towards the moon, incur the same path loss from earth to moon; BUT, THEN
you enlarge the signal with a gain antenna at the repeater, and then have a
sensitive receiver that can detect and amplify the signal. The repeater
then transponds the signal to a different frequency band, amplifies it as
much as equipment weight and power availability allow, transmit it through
a gain antenna, and only THEN incur the huge path loss from moon to earth.
Because the path loss is only in a single direction, and instead of an
inefficient (lossy) passive reflector, you have gain antennas for reception
and transmission, plus amplification on receive and on transmit, the net
earth station requirements should be much less than conventional EME.
That's not to say it would be easy, just that it should be easier than
conventional EME in terms of station requirements on earth. As has been
mentioned numerous times already, the station requirements for the space
end of the system are enormously more difficult than anything we've ever
tackled so far with either LEO or HEO satellites.
But there's no harm in DISCUSSING the idea, and learning about the pitfalls
and possibilities as part of the discussion. Even if it never comes to
pass, we should all be a bit more knowledgeable after having had the
As far as the dreaming goes, wouldn't an L/S transponder be better than a
V/U or U/V transponder? Granted, the path loss is greater, but the antenna
gain is easier to produce...
While I am a firm believer in the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid!),
I am getting a little tired of hearing people complain endlessly about the
downfall of AO-40 being due to its complexity. Uhh, the downfall of AO-40
was human error, which will ALWAYS be an issue. The only reason that AO-40
was ever usable at all was BECAUSE of its complexity, i.e., the redundancy
of multiple transponders that could be switched into place after initial
failures, etc. OF COURSE, a mission to the moon needs to be as light and
compact as it can be made, and therefore much simpler than AO-40, but due
to the harsh environment in which it would be asked to operate, it needs to
be as complex as necessary to get the job done, i.e. not as simple as AO-10
73 de W0JT
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