[amsat-bb] Re: IRB's and Satellites.
la2qaa at hotmail.com
Fri Apr 27 04:16:15 PDT 2007
Very eloquently put, your mail was a credit to this bbs and of
course I agree with you 100%. Personally, I'm completely self-taught and
operate a 100% home brew satellite station. My intention was to breach the
... "can't afford it" ... excuse. Your point about possible congestion on
the bands is a very good one indeed.
Have a nice day.
73 John. <la2qaa at amsat.org>
>From: Jeff Davis <jl.davis at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: jl.davis at gmail.com
>To: amsat-bb at amsat.org
>Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: IRB's and Satellites.
>Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:29:52 +0000
>gOn Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 04:39:24PM +0200, John Hackett wrote:
> > OBSERVATIONS FROM NORWAY. 26-04-2007.
> > INTERNET REMOTE BASE STATIONS FOR SATELLITES.
> > Love 'em or hate 'em ... IRB'as are a part of amateur radio.
> > So ... why would LA2QAA want to use one?. Well, they can! be used for
> > operating satellites.
>Moving forward, we are going to see much more of this kind of operation in
>amateur radio so it only follows that amateur satellite enthusiasts would
>get onboard as well. It's use is, of course, not without debate. In the
>radio (HF) contesting world there has been a long and vigorous conversation
>about how contest rules should apply to a guy who builds a super station
>on one continent and operates it from another, etc.
>But those pesky details have more to do with the competitive nature of that
>radiosport than technicalities. Obviously, it works...
>I went to the local university planetarium a few nights ago (Ball State
>University) and learned that BSU has joined with an organization (SARA) of
>schools that operates an observatory near Kitt Peak. It can be completely
>operated remotely via the Internet (open the dome turn and focus the
>telescopes, take images, etc.). It seems like a marvelous way to co-op the
>expense of an observatory.
>But the goal of that exercise is to study the heavens -- not to learn how
>build telescopes and observatories, and being able to do it from a remote
>location is an advantage.
>When it comes to amateur satellites, I think many of us would say that our
>goal is to experiment, study, learn and enjoy the excitement of
>communications via space-based assets. Without actually building a radio
>station, I'm not sure how much can be learned from operating a station
>remotely over the Internet?
>[I'll completely leave aside the more obvious questions about the
>sensibility of having untrained, unrestriced newbies making hash of the
>Perhaps this is all about goals then ... if your goal is to simply
>communicate via a satellite, then the remote base concept is perfectly
>and it has been demonstrated that it works.
>If the goal is to learn how to build a groundstation and then optimize it
>for use with satellites, then I'm not sure this will do that (unless of
>course you are the one building the station).
>I see it like a calculator and a slide rule ... the calculator works great,
>you just punch in some numbers and the correct result pops out. But the
>slide rule allows one to see the underlying mathematics taking shape as it
>is moved to the same answer.
>Which way is "better" must be self-determined.
>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
MSN Music http://music.msn.no Finn din favorittmusikk blant nesten 1 million
More information about the AMSAT-BB