[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.
>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
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