Satgen98  Satellites for the Future - Your Choice   11 Feb 91    by GM4IHJ

Many thanks for the interesting packets and letters in respect of
proposals for future satellites in Satgen96 . Low Earth Orbit (LEO) mode B
analog transponder was the choice of 92%. In the other 8% PhaseIII Oscar
13 type satellites were favoured but no one opted for Pacsats and more
than 50% wanted no more pacsats launched - the strength of this last point
was a surprise to me. Several other points of interest included:-

G2HIO Alan is a Phase III fan all modes and wonders if Phase III D is
being forgotten. I am not sure if Amsat UK has reported this ( although I
see they are promised for 25k per year for Phase IIID ), but Amsat NA put
a long article on this in their Nov 90 Journal . This reports the Marburg
Germany May 90 meeting about Phase III D , and it also carries a strong
statement of opinion by N4HY. So while nothing is set in concrete, I read
the above as saying you have no need to worry Alan.Phase IIID is on track,
although MIR packet /voice users outnumber Phase III users 1000/1.
Alan also raises the point of satellite user numbers. Frankly these are
disappointing for would be Phase III fans. Despite RS12/13 nee 10/11
restricted bandwidth and Fuji AO20 analogs uncertain opening  times,
there is far more usage of these two birds than there is of AO10 or AO13.
On a recent Sunday pm in range Europe and N America, AO13 had just 13
users or tuners/callers on mode B, I found mode L with 7 users and mode S
with just 5 ( 2 qso's and a caller).  G3ZCZ/W3  points out that Mode B has
simply not performed well on Phase III because it is not suited to that
mode, although it is excellent for Phase 2 sats as we all know from Oscar
7. N4HY makes the point more forcefully in Amsat Journal when he says -
While it ( Oscar 13 mode B) does provide communications , it does so in a
marginal manner.
One topic where I hoped for support was Gateways. I got none. Regular sat
users said 1. they would not support facilities to make it " too easy "
for others. 2. No one would donate cash to build gateways , though half
amateur radio ,( apparently , the wrong half ) , would love to use
gateways for free. Almost all correspondents cited the difficulties
Repeaters and packet nodes have in getting users to provide even limited
financial support . There was however one very interesting suggestion,
which I like but am not sure will be legal. This proposed that gateways
should be select call only. No Pay. No Use. It may be worth going for this
even if we have to get legislation changed to do it ?
Another item which puzzled me a little about possible microwave gateways
was the number of correspondents who said they would build microwave
access however complex. In view of the lack of enthusiasm for computer/
digital Pacsats . I cannot see this . Access by your own station will not
be easy. Very few UK amateurs have clear views and high towers for easy
access and almost none have ever attempted anything half as difficult as
gateway type microwave, and digital control ,technology.
Last but not least. Not one correspondent wanted more packet store and
forward. Several citing dissappointment with present pacsats. But almost
all would welcome a 70cm downlink packet bulletin broadcaster, putting out
DX,Prop, Solar, Aurora etc news worldwide from LEO, and more than a third
want HF propagation beacons on all sats , for experiments and propagation
testing. Thanks for a very interesting exchange. 73 de John GM4IHJ@GB7SAN