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

    • Official Post
    Quote from G4IUG

    So at what position will it be ? And what up/down frequencies ? Is this a real satellite and not "fake news" ? I would love it to be real.

    Dave, this are no fake news. A better article you can find here on the AMSAT-UK homapage:

    https://amsat-uk.org/2016/10/1…nous-ham-radio-satellite/

    Quote from HB9SKA

    Look at https://www.amsat.org/?s=phase+4b ;)

    Didn't that project come to a halt for some reason?

    I wonder if a new option would be to find some satellite that is now in the specification phase and is to be built by MELCO, and try to re-use the knowledge and experience they already gained when building the transponder aboard Es'hail-2.

    That could make it easier to convince the operator to do the same thing as well.

    Sure. I'm the lead for the Phase 4 Ground station project. We designed the air interface for Phase 4B. The 4B payload is still at Virginia Tech. We got a ride with Wide Field of View, a US Air Force payload. All of that is true and documented in several places.

    AMSAT-NA inexplicably became opposed to Phase 4b and Phase 4 Ground. They deliberately downplayed the project and presented it in very negative ways. So, Phase 4 Ground enthusiasts formed their own nonprofit, called Open Research Institute. We asked to be an affiliate organization of AMSAT-NA, so that the main organization could do their ITAR encumbered things without being bothered too much by the open source ground development. We unfortunately got turned down. We kept working anyway! We love the project and want to see it come about for both terrestrial and space deployments.

    The new organization got 501c3 status this past week.

    So moving forward we are working hard on finding additional launches (besides WFOV) for the P4B payload. Any payload that wants a regenerative repeater 5GHz FDMA up and 10GHz TDM down, with full DVB-S2/X and GSE and multiplexing with QoS? We are doing that. We can serve your payload.

    We hope to be able to announce a second and better launch soon. I'm not allowed to talk about the space side, but there's a lot of hard won progress here.

    If you want to follow along any of the technical progress with the air interface and ground, then our documents are at https://github.com/phase4ground

    Our sponsoring organization (and blog, and mailing list) is at https://openresearch.institute/

    If you want to join our Slack account, where the daily engineering happens, then just send me a DM and I'm happy to add you.

    We have made a lot of progress despite the ups and downs of launch promises and delays. I work full time on this and am dedicated to seeing it through.

    Hi Michelle


    You probably don't know me, but I supplied John Beanland with a lot of the equipment he sold. I warned against Phase 3D on the basis of its over ambition.


    The latest AMSAT-NA magazine has nothing about Oscar 100 in it, nothing at all ! Why ?


    Could you add me to your engineering list please.


    Regards Dave

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

    It sounds like you have a wealth of experience!

    Join directly by signing up here:
    https://lists.openresearch.ins…n/listinfo/ground-station

    For the Slack account, email me your preferred address and I'll add you. I'm w5nyv@arrl.net

    I don't know why AMSAT-NA Journal has nothing about QO-100. There's certainly been a lot of activity and experimentation going on. It's been really wonderful.


    It could simply be that no one has submitted anything about QO-100 yet. It could be something is planned or someone has reserved it as their "turf" and next issue will have a big feature.

    Quote from G4IUG

    Quote from DH5DAX Michael


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

    so what exactly is your problem here? Is it the distance between operator and radio? Is it network technology? Or is it internet itself? Did you miss that we are an scientific radio service and not a historic preservation radio application?


    So again, please let me know what your substantial problem with remote operations is - is it ony the term "internet"? Now imagine the very same technology used over hamnet with no internet involved. Is that still no ham radio?


    Please, don't be emotional about technological topics. Thank you.

    DH5DAX I fully answered your question as you requested.
    You are now putting words into my mouth and also attempting to intimidate me. And there is quite a lot of deflection in your last post. None of that does your cause any good at all !

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

    Quote from I0LYL

    Unbelievable. I am sorry to say but I no longer recognize the Amsat that formed me from the seventies onwards.

    Ciao, Lucio


    Lucio,


    It's not believable because these statements are patently false or hyperbole.


    As Secretary of AMSAT, I have not received and am not aware of any application for member societies ("affiliate") denied.


    It is important to note that AMSAT as an organization is not opposed to Phase 4. This statement made above is entirely false. Why would an organization opposed to Phase 4 approve spending $100,000 for proof-of-concept testing on a launch that was never guaranteed? AMSAT invested because it believes in Phase 4 opportunities.


    It is nothing new that AMSAT-affiliated organizations are often bound by Non Disclosure Agreements (NDA) and cannot identify launch partners. When a launch has been identified and agreements reached, it is not assured that the amateur payload will ever visit the launchpad. Anyone can make claims about "potential launches" but until there is a manifested payload sitting on a launch vehicle, it is all talk.


    73,

    Clayton

    W5PFG

    Hi Clayton


    In the latest "AMSAT Journal" USA (NA ?) Volume 42 Number 1, I cannot find any reference to QO100/Es'hail at all. To me as a member, this suggests that AMSAT USA (NA ?) are ambivalent towards geostationary ham satellites ?


    73's Dave

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

    Edited 2 times, last by G4IUG ().

    Quote from G4IUG

    Hi Clayton


    In the latest "AMSAT Journal" USA Volume 42 Number 1, I cannot find any reference to QO100/Es'hail at all. To me as a member, this suggests that AMSAT USA are ambivalent towards geostationary ham satellites ?


    73's Dave

    It suggests to me that no one with any practical experience has volunteered to write such an article yet. Perhaps it will be you?


    73, Drew KO4MA

    Quote from KO4MA

    It suggests to me that no one with any practical experience has volunteered to write such an article yet. Perhaps it will be you?


    73, Drew KO4MA

    Ha ha ! It shows that AMSAT USA (NA ?) is not interested and can't be bothered to tell it's subscribers that it was even working. I won't be renewing my subscription. The USA can be so insular.

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

    Edited once, last by G4IUG ().

    AMSAT USA? Asfar as I know its AMSAT NA.

    Member since 1973 (#493) and Life member LM-34 or so.

    Yes, no mention about QO-100. More about the cubesats.

    But still remember IWI with C-C-rider and many other proposals. Wait and see.

    73 DK2ZF



    active on QO-100 since the official opening.