[eagle] Re: Eagle 10 MHz Clock
wb4gcs at amsat.org
Wed Apr 11 17:59:54 PDT 2007
U and L receivers will always be on, is my understanding of
requirements. I've seen nothing to change that. The subject of 1 or 2
receivers at U and/or L is fuzzy, and a topic I wish to bring to closure
over the next month or so.
There is a top-level block diagram, possibly in need of slight revision,
on EaglePedia, in the report of the "Black Forest" meeting in Oct/Nov of
Tom: Pls forward to Bill.
Thanks & 73,
wb4gcs at amsat.org
Bill Ress wrote:
>Hi Dick and Bdale,
>Good points about keeping the command receiver on 100% - no issue there.
>But I think the matter is somewhat confused (at least for me) since I
>believe the command receiver that John has designed is also the
>data/analog receiver. I don't recall that being the case is the past
>satellites. If command and data function stay combined, then that's all
>the more reason for considering John's suggestion for two U receivers.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also understand that there will also be a
>separate L command receiver, but again not sure about that too.
>Gosh - just think how handy a satellite top level block diagram might
>be, even if its a work in progress. Or is there one and I haven't bumped
>Regards...Bill - N6GHz
>Dick Jansson-rr wrote:
>>In my recollection there has been no option to anything with a command
>>receiver at all in past satellites. This receiver was ON to be able to do
>>its function regardless of other 'activities' on the satellite. In other
>>words, it could not be messed with for any reason. Such a capability is
>>absolutely essential for the health (and recovery) of the satellite and its
>>Dick Jansson, KD1K
>>kd1k at amsat.org
>>kd1k at arrl.net
>>From: eagle-bounces at amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces at amsat.org] On Behalf Of
>>Sent: Wednesday, 11 April, 2007 1439
>>To: Bill Ress
>>Cc: K3IO at verizon.net; EAGLE
>>Subject: [eagle] Re: Eagle 10 MHz Clock
>>On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 14:12 -0700, Bill Ress wrote:
>>>Don't think power would be impacted since the spare unit would be in a
>>>power down mode.
>>Please don't assume that it's ok to have the power to a command receiver
>>switchable without substantial discussion and review. All prior AMSAT
>>projects that I'm aware of have had command receivers always on, even if
>>they weren't always in use. I'm pretty confident that includes both of a
>>redundant pair. Happy to be corrected by others with better knowledge of
>>history if I'm mis-remembering some relevant case.
>>Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
>>Eagle at amsat.org
>Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
>Eagle at amsat.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Eagle