[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: AMSAT has a SECRET: why not 10m instead of V band


The biggest problem with a 10m downlink is the bandwidth of the passband.

The 10m satellite sub-band is quite small.  The S-band downlink sub-band is
much larger (I am not sure how much).  If you try to link something like L
band to 10 m, you will only be able to use a very small portion of the
uplink passband.

This is another reason why 2m is rapidly losing favor as a band of choice
(although I personally would like to see it stay for the next bird or two)
for HEO satellite work.

AO-40 has a 10m downlink because it was going to have a 2m uplink.  Come to
think of it, the HF bands haven't been tried on AO-40 yet, so we could do 2
up, 10 down and I think the IF matrix could even connect them separately
from the U/S and L/S combinations (I am not positive, but I think it could).

Your idea does have a good thought at heart.



on 6/1/01 10:41 AM, sco@sco-inc.com at sco@sco-inc.com wrote:

> I might do away with a 2m link in favor of a 10m downlink capability. That
> way any ham or SWL who has a general coverage receiver 160-10m will be able
> to hear the satellite. Once they hear it they might get interested and want
> to talk thru it too. I would suggest that more people  (hams and SWLs) have
> a general coverage HF receiver as compared to an all mode VHF receiver.
> They are less expensive to buy too.
> A 10m downlink could be heard well on a dipole antenna.
> Make a satellite in an AO-40 orbit (that was planned).
> With 10m and S band downlinks.
> With U and L band uplinks.

Jon Ogden
NA9D (ex: KE9NA)



"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."

Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org