[amsat-bb] Re: Sats for emergencies

Edward R. Cole kl7uw at acsalaska.net
Tue Jun 28 09:25:53 PDT 2011

At 07:59 AM 6/28/2011, jerry wrote:
>I can see it now , USA Today headlines " Ham operator successfully 
>passes ARRL RadioGram over Orbiting Satellite" .
>   As much trouble and time it takes to pass a message over much 
> more controlled frequiencies , I could not imagine trying to pass a 
> formatted message over a satellite , therefore rendering a sat as 
> useless for handling emergency traffic.
>   And I still say a net control type format would allow for many 
> more contacts on field day than just QRZ.
>Jerry WB5LHD
>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


Exactly why I stated that, in my opinion, digital comms is the 
practical mode for satellite emcomm.  Voice Net would be for brief 
"real-time messages" e.g.  "we need a node set up in location 
blank";  "the hospital needs a generator",  "send a helicopter we 
have x number injured", "my car is stuck and the water is rising", 
"the fire cut off our escape route, help!" ...  No 30+ word formal 
messages on voice.  Digital packet or APRS can be much more efficient 
and accurate.

Typically, voice is local VHF/UHF simplex (when all else 
fails).  Satellite for longer range coordination links which 
currently are managed on HF.

73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45
BP40IQ   500 KHz - 10-GHz   www.kl7uw.com
EME: 50-1.1kw?, 144-1.4kw, 432-100w, 1296-60w, 3400-?
DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa at gmail.com

More information about the AMSAT-BB mailing list