[amsat-bb] Re: Query, please.

[Richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard W L Limebear)]

"Michael P. Olbrisch" wrote:

>         He said that he could not see what the problem with the
> SWATCH satellite was...[snip]  His answer was "It didn't seem to
> bother hams in the past" How so I asked.  He used Uosat-11 as his
> example.  As he says, itwas built by SSTL, a commercial company.  It
> collects data that is"available" to hams, but not directed primarily
> at hams.

Then Mark Johns writes:
> my answer would be that UO-11 had a primarily scientific/experimental
> purpose in which hams were invited to participate, partially in order
> to prepare there stations for more advanced modes coming down the pike
> in future satellites with uplinks.

UO-11 (and UO-9) served an educational purpose. Easy equipment in 
classrooms and school kids have instant science; here, right now, etc.
It grabbed them; still does.

Satellite WAS won't preserve our bands at ITU conferences ... but, boy
oh boy, do they sit up and listen when we tell of the educational pluses.

> I do have beef along these lines, however:  It used to be that as soon
> as a bird was in orbit it lost whatever tag it had as a work in
> progress and took the name of its OSCAR designation.

Oscar ... Shmoscar. We are a victim of our own success in this case. We
never envisioned a time when there would be 19 amateur satellites *active*
in orbit. In this case would you call each one John or Jane ... or use
their given name. Also the numbering process is *not* instant; those numbers
are only allocated after certain protocols are fulfilled. Be patient, it 
*will* get its number shortly.

73
Richard W L Limebear G3RWL
g3rwl@amsat.org
FOC # 1188

          So many beautiful girls ..... (sob) so little time
----
Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org