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

Re: Eagle and P3E



There are two C-band allocations - 5650-5670 MHz for uplinks and 5830-5850
MHz for downlinks - so there is no possibility for frequency reuse.

73,

John
KD6OZH

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Robertson" <broberts@mta.ca>
To: "Robert McGwier" <rwmcgwier@comcast.net>
Cc: <amsat-bb@AMSAT.Org>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 23:38 UTC
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Eagle and P3E


> Quoting Robert McGwier <rwmcgwier@comcast.net>:
>
> > Nate:
> >
> >
> > Amateurs operating in the amateur service are allowed to transmit IN OUR
> >
> > BANDS with power and gains exceeding part 15 with 802.11 equipment.
> > ARRL's  HSMM group has been attempting to do this for a while.   The
> > content restrictions are just onerous (you can't legally surf the web
> > doing and other things).   If I get another shot at the board of
> > directors of the ARRL,  I am going to really shove as hard as I can
> > without getting thrown out, that we move to have the content
> > restrictions relaxed considerably above NNN MHz to encourage
> > experimentation.  I might get shot down or their might be some serious
> > pitfalls that I am overlooking. I would at least like them to consider
> > pro-change arguments.
> >
> > Bob
> > N4HY
>
> Bob and the list:
>
> This ties in nicely with what is surely one of the very compelling
> applications of the Eagle concept. In the second paragraph of section #5
of
> this post
> <http://128.54.16.15/amsat/archive/amsat-bb/200601/msg00221.html>, I
> wondered about a small, portable station providing an internet bridge to a
> disaster-stricken area. Of course, if the 802.11b/g side of that station
> were to be high-power, it could act as a hub for links to terrestrial
> 802.11b/g disaster-relief amateur stations with equally high-power
> equipment. These would support the relief workers and agencies using their
> customary internet communication tools.
>
> Disasters and emergencies aren't the only places where this would be of
> use. I'm told that research vessels at sea often still don't have a live
> internet link and use satellite phones to uplink email over a modem at
> great cost.
>
> The recent discussion about using 'social engineering' techniques to
> mitigate S-band QRM has convinced me that the Eagle team is right to avoid
> this band for downlink: *that* toothpaste is apparently already out of the
> tube.  However, high-power 802.11 might be part of a *system* that argues
> strongly for Eagle. I suppose that as we develop the S/C system, we might
> want to experiment with bridging to 802.11, to illustrate this potential
> use and to ensure that the S-band xmitter doesn't QRM potential 802.11
> links. (Of course, we'd have control over the channel on these links.)
>
> Finally, Dom and others argue for Eagle to have a C band downlink the same
> as the uplink for P3E. I must be missing something: wouldn't this run the
> risk of Eagle QRM'ing P3E?
>
>
> 73, Bruce
> VE9QRP
>
> P.S. Thanks for to everyone for the high level of discussion recently. One
> of the great pleasures of this list for me (and, I'm sure, many others) is
> to be witness to the engineering process. Soul of a New Machine, indeed.
> ----
> 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
----
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



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home