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

Re: Here I go again... Was: Re: UO-14 , FO-29, FO-20, QRM via ISS

Hi again to Bob, Scott, and all,

Let me snip from both of your replies as needed... then maybe I 
can be more brief (not my strong point, as all are well aware!).

Scott said:
> All in jest......

Thanks Scott!  Both you and Bob have provided excellent feedback 
to me and the list (both now and in earlier threads)... and I am glad 
to note that neither of you seem to be personally offended.  I do not 
mean to offend... only to "stir the pot" occasionally as the mood 
strikes me (in reading other posts that seem to relate).

I also have a passionate interest in ISS communications... and 
would like for things to be better.  I believe they *WILL* be better in 
the future, as the building of the station continues, the ham shack 
moves to its new home, and new equipment and modes are 
activated onboard.

One recent post that stirred me was about Scott's station being 
copied 22 times in one pass, on 3 June.  The notion that APRS is 
a "heavy user" of the channel goes back to its inception just about, 
as my memory serves, and on until the time when it moved to its 
own frequency.   

Bob said:
> W3ADO sends about 10 or 11 packets TOTAL per pass

Speaking of W3ADO and WA6LIE, I said:
> But I am not convinced yet that they are "excessive" either.  

This is good stuff to know... and confirms, for me, that APRS is not 
as much of a "heavy user" as is suggested from time to time.  
There may be MOMENTS of heavy hitting (suggested by the short 
"intervals" sending different types of packets).  But a live QSO also 
is carried out by "moments" of heavy hitting.  I'd say APRS and 
keyboarders are on a pretty level playing field here. 

Let me also apologize for the confusion that the 4 sec "interval"  
between transmissions might indicate the overall "rate" of 
transmission.  It obviously does not.

So are "10 or 11 total packets per pass" too much?  Not really... 
certainly not if you consider the service that they are providing.  
They are each giving position information for 2 stations, themselves 
and the ISS, and they also provide bulletins that are beneficial to 
all.  I am also reminded that they like to "say hi" or send other 
greetings while operating live at the keyboard too!  We all like that, 
don't we?!?!  ;-)

I said:
> I copy both stations here near Chicago on almost every single 

And this is true.  But now let me put it in another context.  I just 
reviewed my logs for so far this month (as "complete" as I have 
them), which includes the "heavy hitting" pass that Scott has been 
cited for.  Check out these numbers:

1 June, one pass, W3ADO-2, WA6LIE-0
2 June, 7 passes, W3ADO-17, WA6LIE-9
3 June, 7 passes, W3ADO-22, WA6LIE-15 (Scott's heavy day)
4 June, 5 passes, W3ADO-21, WA6LIE-0
5 June, none (except 2300Z included with 6 June)
6 June, 4 passes, W3ADO-4, WA6LIE-0

On the 7-pass days, with 10 or 11 packets per pass, thats a 
potential at my QTH for 70-77 total packets to be seen from 
W3ADO.  The best that I got was 22 packets.  A little less than 
33% success ratio.  On 4 June, the potential was 50-55 packets, 
with 21 seen... close to 40% success.  These numbers also show 
an *average* of about 3 packets per pass on 3 June, about 4 
packets per pass on 4 June.  This is probably right on par with the 
success that I can achieve when I am active, although I run a 
substantially higher ERP than W3ADO.  Scott's *average* here 
was only 2 packets per pass... on his "heavy" day!  Isn't that 
interesting?!?!?!  On the "heavy pass" (with 22 packets)... I only 
counted 7... and some of these look to be "live" rather than 
automated. So still thats not too "bad," it seems.

These averages seem FAR from "excessive" to me.  Keep in mind 
of course, that this is only based on what I see here.  Others might 
be able to see better or worse results from W3ADO, or Scott, or 
me... especially better if closer to us.  It is also possible that I see 
even better returns for W3ADO than Bob does, or that he sees 
better returns for me than I do.

Scott said:
> You have a lot of good questions, but no answers.

True enough!  No "original" answers at least!

I threw out that it would seem "better" (to the keyboarders anyway) 
if the ISS could transmit the APRS posits... a single station on 
downlink only, rather than 2 stations on uplink.

Bob said:
> Yes, that was the original intent.  There would be a GPS  
>connected to provide ISS position data... Problem is, it will be 
>YEARS until a GPS is connected

I said:
> I realize that nothing is going to be solved overnight...

'Tis sad that the wheels of progress turn so slowly sometimes, but 
we all have to accept that fact as well.  But I continue to hope that 
these discussions can influence the powers-that-be in the plans 
that are being made for the ISS.

Not long ago I commented that I believe that simplex would be 
"better" for ISS operations.  Certainly not an original idea there 
either!   The responses that I read seemed that most people 
concurred though.  Its just so hard to pick a frequency!

A lot of people have expressed fond memories of working the Mir, 
and have related how much "easier" it was to work than ISS.  
Perhaps using simplex helped that situation... thats hard to judge. 
But certainly the Mir enjoyed (at least for a time) the care of remote 
sysops like Scott, tweaking the TNC parameters to help the 
efficiency.  The still-fledgling ISS TNC, using default parameters 
since the battery failure, is still struggling to cope with its instant 

Yes, things will improve.... the party has just begun!

Well, so much (AGAIN!) for trying to be brief.  Thanks to all for the 
positive comments, as always...

73 de Stan/W4SV

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