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

Re: IRB's and Satellites.





Jeff,

Perhaps I should retrench in my comments, as I do not disagree with 
you.  My entire ham radio experience "is" that challenge.  I am an 
engineer and what "we" do is design and build.  EME and Microwave 
provide that.  Satellite, also, but to a lessor level...it is my 
"desert after the meal".

I have a dear friend that absolutely refuses anything dealing with 
IRLB or Echolink.  But I feel they serve a purpose and do provide a 
service.  There is no incentive to build, except to the folks that 
provide the service.  That is how I look on repeaters.  They are 
handy for talking over.  They do not "excite" because that is what I 
do professionally (repeaters are work, not fun).  At work I have 7 
remote bases to maintain.

So in the back of my mind I was thinking that the IRB or IRLB linking 
for running a remote base is merely a utility...same as leasing a 
phone line.  Just a piece of the station (like a 
microphone).  Setting up a remote base can be ham radio fun (like 
repeaters are for many).  But if you are merely accessing a public 
remote base then its like buying long distance telephone service 
(yawn).  But if your living situation prohibits direct participation 
in a facet of ham radio (apartment restrictions, not enough money) 
then it is a way to experience some of the fun (sort of like hanging 
over at the neighbor ham's super station).  Whether this will become 
an incentive to get involved in at a "personal" level is a 
question.  I think that is like anything else one comes in contact 
with in their life.  Some do, some don't.

But I am "FOR" new ideas, and new ways.  Keeping it "new" is 
FUN.  Why I am now getting into MW listening on 500-KHz.  Its new and 
still falls under the big umbrella called "weak-signal".  BTW DX 
began as a "weak-signal" activity, but on HF-DX (mostly) has become a 
sport (competition).  Satellite and QRP now provide much of the fun 
of the early HF DX...discovering how far one can push the envelope!

73's Ed - KL7UW
0.5 - 10,368 MHz, sat, eme, m/s, radio astronomy, SDR's, ...no end in sight ;-)

At 02:31 AM 4/27/2007, Jeff Davis, KE9V wrote:
>On 4/26/07, Edward Cole <kl7uw@acsalaska.net> wrote:
> > We have seen this debate here in Alaska with the '"diehard" (read
> > this also as the super pro-CW) ham disliking anything dealing with
> > marriage between the Internet and ham radio.
>
>I don't think my position could be considered "diehard" and as the
>operator of IRLP node 4212 I have no problem with the "marriage
>between the Internet and ham radio." In fact, I think it serves a
>great purpose and I use it daily. I wish we had a weekly AMSAT Net via
>Echolink or IRLP so we could use such technologies to further discuss
>the future of ham radio in space (anyone want to join me?) without the
>vagaries of HF propagation.
>
>But I think that there are certain facets of the hobby, like
>satellites and EME and probably others, where folks get involved
>specifically for the technology. Would a homebrewer without access to
>a soldering pin be content to watch others build equipment on a live
>video feed? Would there be a thrill in logging on to a super station
>on another continent from your laptop and working moonbounce?
>
>Unless one is a skeptic that this sort of thing (EME) actually takes
>place and just needs some proof, I think we all believe that with the
>right equipment the deed CAN be done, but the challenge is in doing
>it.
>
> > So I have no problem with remote bases linked by IRLB, echolink, or
> > like technology.  As long as any records, contest entry reflects the
> > actual radio transmitter QTH.
>
>The amateur satellite world has a unique problem. It doesn't work well
>without satellites and those cost money to build and to launch. If we
>were to setup a dozen super stations around the world, all fully
>accessible via the internet -- and few built their own stations
>anymore, will those Internet users financially support future AMSAT
>projects?
>
>If your entire investment in amateur radio is the laptop that you
>already own, are you as inclined to support costly future projects as
>the operator who has invested perhaps thousands of dollars and hours
>of labor in assembling and building a world class groundstation?
>
>I think there is some evidence that they do not...
>
>20 years ago there was a very popular idea that AMSAT should focus on
>EZ-Sats because that would get more people involved with amateur
>satellites since all they would need to operate them was a handheld
>transceiver. Soon, we had all kinds of new operators using the flying
>FM repeater satellites but curiously, AMSAT membership took a nose
>dive from which it has yet to recover.
>
>Perhaps making everything as "easy" as just logging on to a remote
>station isn't such a good idea either?
>
>Jeff, KE9V
>_______________________________________________
>Sent via AMSAT-BB@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

73,
Ed - KL7UW
======================================
  BP40IQ   50-MHz - 10-GHz   www.kl7uw.com
144-EME: FT-847, mgf-1801, 4x-xpol-20, 185w
DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa@hotmail.com
====================================== 

_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@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



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home