[eagle] Re: Path loss (Was: A new opportunity (Phase 4 lite?))

Ken Ernandes n2wwd at mindspring.com
Mon Jul 23 10:13:11 PDT 2007

I agree.  This is one reason I always remove the frequency-dependent
component when I do path loss analysis for a particular orbit.  

73, Ken N2WWD

-----Original Message-----
From: eagle-bounces at amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces at amsat.org] On Behalf Of
Alan Bloom
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 12:13 PM
To: Rick Hambly (W2GPS)
Subject: [eagle] Path loss (Was: A new opportunity (Phase 4 lite?))

On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 13:17, Rick Hambly (W2GPS) wrote:

> 3) Use 10GHz as the region 1 downlink. This would require a new antenna
> array and we would need to deal with the issues associated with the higher
> path loss while keeping things simple for our average users.

On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 17:42, John B. Stephensen wrote: 
> The increased gain of the earth station antenna compensates for the path 
> loss.

Right.  People say that path loss increases proportional to frequency (6
dB more path loss every time you double the frequency).  But that is
true only if you assume the antenna gain at both ends of the link is
kept constant as you change frequency.

However, if you assume antenna APERTURE is constant with frequency, then
path loss is actually INVERSELY proportional to frequency (6 dB LESS
loss every time you double the frequency).  In other words, for
constant-size antennas, the higher the frequency the better.

So what does that mean for Eagle?

If you assume satellite antenna gain does not change with frequency (so
as to keep the beam width just wide enough to illuminate the earth) and
earth station aperture does not change with frequency (to keep the same
dish size), then path loss is independent of frequency.


Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
Eagle at amsat.org

More information about the Eagle mailing list