Proposal for an Internet Remote Base station (IRB) in the footprint of QO-100.

  • Hi All,

    I respectfully propose a request for the setting up of an Internet Remote Base (IRB) somewhere in the footprint of QO-100, in one of the almost 140 countries illuminated by the satellite.


    IRB's have been part of ham radio for decades, and are legal in many countries, with certain conditions attached.

    Many amateur radio operators, outside of the footprint, or those who do not have access to the necessary hardware to operate this exciting new satellite, might benefit from such a venture.

    If this is done correctly, it could be a force multiplier for this fantastic effort.


    I have previously mentioned the idea of doing this through Echolink, or the RCForb freeware from http://www.remotehams.com on the Shoutbox.


    See the freeware at:

    http://www.echolink.org

    And

    http://www.remotehams.com


    We realize that some excellent WebSDR's are available for this satellite, but these have no transmit capability.

    We also realize that AMSAT-DL and QARS have the final say.

    Please give this proposal serious consideration.


    Respectfully,

    Bernard,

    KC9SGV

    Chicago

  • This is an example what could be done with the RCForb server freeware from http://www.remotehams.com

    It could be set up as a club station only, giving more oversight and only allowing trusted members to operate in turn.

    It could also be set up on one fixed frequency only, allowing only one transmission (and reception) mode.

    The greater effect of this will be to attract more radio amateurs to the satellite operations facet of this hobby. Entice them to acquire their own hardware...


    Also, see this excellent short article on IRB operations by K5PA.

    Note, this was written before the advent of an available GEO sat for ham radio operations.


    http://www.arrl.org/files/file…logy/pdf/QSTWhyRemote.pdf


    KC9SGV

  • Dear Bernard,

    I understand your frustration, but we discussed this before the launch and concluded that this would not be a good idea.

    Apart from legal and regulatory issues, we are currently not supporting the idea of remote access or "relaying" via Internet to the satellite using a transmit gateway.
    Sorry...

    73s Peter

    Peter Gülzow | DB2OS | AMSAT-DL President | member since 1983 | JO42VG

  • Dear Bernard,

    I understand your frustration, but we discussed this before the launch and concluded that this would not be a good idea.

    Apart from legal and regulatory issues, we are currently not supporting the idea of remote access or "relaying" via Internet to the satellite using a transmit gateway.
    Sorry...

    73s Peter

    I agree - I would go further it is a bad idea for transmit - it is also pointless - transmit on internet over a satellite you cannot receive? Where is the skill and self training in that?


    Mike

  • Please let us respect the fact that AMSAT-DL doesn't support it at the moment. But if you are against, please also respect that times are changing and there are more antenna restrictions getting in place so it's getting harder, especially for beginners to get on air from home. Remote operations is something we need to consider as an addition to our hobby to become compatible with this development. For example, my group has been presenting shortwave radio to visitors on a fair between christmas and new year every year for over 15 years. when the event grew too big we had to change locations and the new location does not permit us to set up hf antennas. without remote operations we wouldn't be able to run a setup for recruiting new hobbyists. so this is a real world problem and not any theory. I hope AMSAT-DL will change their mind at a later point in time as I would be heavily willing to work with them on providing a well-communicated remote base for Es'hailSat-2.

  • Remote operations is something we need to consider as an addition to our hobby to become compatible with this development.

    Where is the skill and self training in that?

    Do we really need more internet applications in amateur radio? I think there are already more than enough. Or not? Because we are radio amateurs, not internet amateurs ;-)

  • Dear Bernard,

    I understand your frustration, but we discussed this before the launch and concluded that this would not be a good idea.

    Apart from legal and regulatory issues, we are currently not supporting the idea of remote access or "relaying" via Internet to the satellite using a transmit gateway.
    Sorry...

    73s Peter

    Uao...Peter....very well.........compliment for denied....73!

  • Do we really need more internet applications in amateur radio? I think there are already more than enough. Or not? Because we are radio amateurs, not internet amateurs ;-)


    You have found the best argument agains anything. This is really hard to fight - just because it's so wrong in so many ways.


    For a start, let me explain just two of them:


    1) "do we need" is a totally misleading question both in a hobbyist and in a scientific context. "Do we really need the new transceiver?" "Do we really need a Satellite"? "Do we need more research against cancer?" You can answer any of these with "no" with a logically valid reasoning. But answering a "do we need" question is completely irrelevant if you are not subject to putting either effort or money into it, which obviously you don't have to.


    2) "enough of x". in psychological linguistics we call this "missing reference index". what is "enough" and who has when defined how much of x is enough and what the rules are once we have reached this quota.


    feel free to argument against new experimental technology and if you have any concerns, don't be afraid to name them, but please use substantial arguments and not these emotional pseudo-arguments like "need" and "enough".


    Kind regards,


    Michael

  • Quote from DH5DAX Michael


    He said "Because we are radio amateurs, not internet amateurs" did you miss that ?

    Dave Cawley | Ex G8EAO & G6ANG/T |
    (when you had to have a separate TV license !)

  • Wow !

    I must have hit a nerve here with my honest request....😀

    Some of us fellow radio amateur hobbyists here in North America (and South America, Australia, etc.) have started building receiving hardware following some of the excellent ideas on this forum.

    But now we can only listen to the beacons of commercial GEO sats above us !

    Boring...

    No way of operating your excellent new satellite.

    I guess an OSCAR 100 DXpedition is my future 👍

  • There are many different things:
    1) To build hardware for QO-100 ground station. (This is my favorite)

    2) Work on QO-100 transponder.

    3) Make remotely controlled station for QO-100, without public access.

    4) Work on QO-100 via internet (most boring).


    So. Goals 1-3 are great and everyone is invited to do it. This is really good for HAMs. New skills and knowledge.


    Goal 4. It is no so exited because you just connecting to website, server, etc and work. What is difference for QO-100 and other remotely controlled (HF) stations? I think that useless because you are using someone else gear while QO-100 is another push to build something yourself interact and experiment with transponder directly. That's the point.

    Small story:
    While I wait for QO-100 I had a question: so I will build stations, what next? I made some TX to transponder, test my gear, fix error and TX again. Still no QSOs. Meybe some HAMs notices two carriers (1 kHz space between them) on transponder few weeks ago (feb 16 and 23). I tested my TX (WiFi booster) linearity, freq stability and signal level. I don't feel that I need to start SSB QSOs right now. Maybe later. Now I am working on DATV RF amp stuff and trying to build ethernet controlled portable station for QO-100.