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

Re: Clarification

Gary "Joe" Mayfield wrote:
> Several people have run some really strange directions with my last post.  I
> apologize for not being as clear as I should have been.  Let me try again.

> It yields the most contacts.  

I still say that's an unsupported assertion. How many *contacts* do you 
hear completed in a pass? I think I heard as many as five last time it 
went by, on a Saturday afternoon. Even FO-29 is doing better than that.

 > Of the amateur satellites currently in use AO-51 is the busiest.

I think that depends a lot on how you define "busy". If when SO-51 is 
hearing three or four FM signals at once, failing to decode a PL tone 
and transmitting a dead carrier, you consider it "busy", then it's busy, 

 > It is one of the easiest to hear.

True enough, that carrier is pinning my meter, even when it's unmodulated.

 > It has the highest number of users.

This is a question similar to "busy". Who is a "user"? Everybody who 
transmits on the uplink? By that standard, there are *bunches* of users. 
If a "user" is someone who is actually *heard* on the downlink, the 
numbers go down quite a bit.

On that three-contact pass I mentioned earlier, I copied five complete 
callsigns. One of them made three of the five contacts. I can't tell you 
for certain that he was using a lot of power, but he blotted out 
everything in sight when he transmitted. and sounded like he was in the 
room with me. I could hear his chair squeaking and the acoustics of the 
room he was in.

Somehow I don't think he was out in the yard with an HT and an Arrow. We 
can hope that when the excitement dies down in populated areas that 
we'll be able to do that. Reports from unpopulated areas seem to suggest 
that it's possible.

I'm a big fan of sucessful satellites. A few years back I made the 
comment here that "AO-40 is the most sucessful satellite that ever blew 
up", so I don't think I can be fairly called a negativist. I even 
believe that we'll get AO-40 back someday. I think that SO-51 is 
unquestionably a highly successful spacecraft, and the surface of its 
potential has barely been scratched.

But how successful are we here on the ground, and especially on the US 
coasts? Fair minds could differ. How much *more* successful could we be 
with some discipine, be it a directed net (and lets remeber that the 
supervision could be time-division or some other out-of-band method) or 
*any* channel-sharing mechanism more rigorous than "punch the button on 
500 watts into 20 el whenever you feel like it"?

I suppose that's fine on 3 MHz of terrestrial HF (although try it on 
some frequencies and you'll hear some complaints). But I think it's a 
hell of a way to run one channel of FM in space.

  73 de Maggie K3XS

-----/___.   _)Margaret Stephanie Leber CCP, SCJP/"The art of progress /
----/(, /|  /| http://voicenet.com/~maggie SCWCD/ is to preserve order/
---/   / | / |  _   _   _    `  _  AOPA 925383/ amid change and to  /
--/ ) /  |/  |_(_(_(_/_(_/__(__(/_      K3XS / preserve change amid/
-/ (_/   '        .-/ .-/        ARRL 39280 /order."-A.N.Whitehead/
/________________(_/_(_/_______AMSAT 32844_/<maggie@voicenet.com>/
Sent via amsat-bb@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org