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

RE: iss packet



Well, that is basically what I'm talking about.  Have the split freq for
voice and have simplex for digital and that way the data won't bother the
ISS crew because they'll be monitoring the voice uplink freq.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric van de Weyer [mailto:eric@van-de-weyer.org] 
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 10:05
To: sarex@AMSAT.Org
Subject: RE: [sarex] iss packet


There is another possible reason for using the splits.

Firstly, by having a single downlink frequency, we only have to listen on
the one frequency on the ground so will be able to hear whichever mode is in
use. We then just switch to the appropriate uplink to call them in that
mode.

Having 2 separate uplink frequencies means that if they decide to switch
from one mode to another, they won't have people still trying to call on the
original mode now blocking those trying to work on the new mode from being
heard by them. As most will probably realise, the space station can see a
footprint of some 1500kM radius or more so they can hear literally hundreds
of stations. It must be a real dog pile for them.

73....Eric VK2VE.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-SAREX@AMSAT.Org [mailto:owner-SAREX@AMSAT.Org]On Behalf Of Larry
Faehling
Sent: Saturday, 27 December 2003 13:00
To: 'sarex@AMSAT.Org'
Subject: Re: [sarex] iss packet


That's the way it appears to me.  I can see altering the xmit freq from the
ISS to suit the area covered, but on semi-duplex usage, what 's the point of
splitting the t/r freqs?  Not that it makes any real difference in the  long
range of things, as long as we know what it is.
  This would make a real difference if it was full duplex.  I 'spose that if
there are a lot of satellite ops in your immediate area that aren't set up
correctly, it might make a difference in your recieve ability.

Larry

On Friday, December 26, 2003, at 08:48 AM, Christensen, Eric wrote:

> Yeah, but it isn't full duplex.  When it is transmitting, it isn't 
> listening on the up freq.  So it might as well have been a collision 
> because the radio
> didn't hear it.
>
> 73s,
> Eric KF4OTN
> At 02:31 AM 26/12/2003, Christensen, Eric wrote:
>> Why go with the frequency pair?  I am hoping for more time on the 
>> digipeater
>> (-4) and I think the duplex is just added "stuff" to have to deal 
>> with.  Is there a bonus for having the split?
>>
>> Eric KF4OTN
>
>      Cuts the traffic (and hence the probability of colliding packets) 
> in half.  I would think the "hidden transmitter syndrome" is greatly
> enhanced
> when trying to work a moving target with just a 12-15 minute window.
> Split
> operation helps this.
>
> 73/DX Paul VE1DX (QSL via VE1YX)
________________________________________________________
Larry Faehling
Amateur Radio KL7IBV in Wisconsin
Wondering about Wisconsin weather? Visit
http://www.frontiernet.net/~lfaehl/weather.htm
Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.
----
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To
unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe sarex" to Majordomo@amsat.org


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



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home